EN BANC
[A.M. No. P-05-2064. December 5, 2017.]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner,vs. CLERK OF COURT JOCELYN G. CABALLERO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, KIDAPAWAN, NORTH COTABATO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedDECEMBER 5, 2017, which reads as follows: TIADCc
"A.M. No. P-05-2064 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Clerk of Court Jocelyn G. Caballero, Regional Trial Court, Kidapawan, North Cotabato). — Before this Court is the Letter of Atty. Jocelyn Caballero (Caballero), former Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan City, North Cotabato, seeking the reconsideration of her petition for judicial clemency.
To recapitulate, in a financial audit conducted at the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan City, North Cotabato (RTC-Kidapawan), the Audit Team of the Court Management Office (team) found several irregularities and discrepancies in the books of accounts of the said court. The audit covered the accountability period of Caballero from April 1983 to April 2004.
In sum, Caballero incurred the following accountabilities: (1) encashed her personal checks and those of other employees from the collections of the court; (2) issued acknowledgment receipts for the amounts received as sheriffs expenses, instead of official receipts; (3) failure to present proofs that any excess in the amounts collected as sheriffs' expenses were refunded to the parties making the deposit; (4) failure to present proofs of liquidation as to where the amounts covered by the acknowledgment receipts were disbursed; (5) failure to present any amount on the cash count on May 17, 2004, representing collections for sheriffs' expenses, considering that she did not maintain an account with the Land Bank of the Philippines for these collections; (6) failure to present proof of remittances to the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) after withdrawing confiscated cash bonds from the Fiduciary Fund account of the court; (7) failure to remit interest earned from the Fiduciary Fund deposits to the account of JDF; and (8) failure to account for the shortages she incurred in the General Fund and the Fiduciary Fund in the amounts of P8,197.96 and P32,385.04, respectively.
On March 2, 2010, the Court found Caballero administratively liable for dishonesty and gross neglect of duty for her numerous violations of the Rules of Court and pertinent court circulars on the procedures of collections and deposits of Court funds resulting to cash shortages and discrepancies. The dispositive portion of the Decision 1 reads:
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. JOCELYN G. CABALLERO, Clerk of Court, RTC, Kidapawan City, North Cotabato, is hereby found GUILTY of GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY and DISHONESTY. She is ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. x x x
SO ORDERED. 2
Caballero filed motions for reconsideration, however, in Resolutions dated June 15, 2010 3 and September 21, 2010, 4 respectively, the Court denied with finality said motions for failure to raise substantial matters that would warrant the reversal of the decision.
Five years later, in a Letter 5 dated September 16, 2015, Caballero filed an appeal for judicial clemency. However, in a Resolution dated January 12, 2016, the Court denied her petition for judicial clemency due to lack of sufficient basis for the grant thereof. Thus, the present motion seeking for reconsideration of the denial of her petition for judicial clemency.
The Court's Ruling
In the exercise of its constitutional power of administrative supervision over all courts and all personnel thereof, the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency in Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for Judicial Clemency:6
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges' or judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation. AIDSTE
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency. 7
Applying the foregoing standards to this case, the Court finds no merit in Caballero's prayer for judicial clemency.
In her present appeal for judicial clemency, Caballero has already fully acknowledged her infractions and realized that she should have acted with justice and observed honesty and good faith in the performance of her duties. Unlike in her previous appeal for judicial clemency, Caballero no longer questioned the Court's decision and instead expressed deep remorse in her failure to follow the Court's circulars.
However, We find that there is yet sufficient lapse of time from the imposition of the penalty that will ensure a period of reformation. It should be pointed out that until this present appeal for judicial clemency, in Caballero's first appeal for judicial clemency dated September 16, 2015 and her previous motions for reconsideration, the Court's finding of guilt did not sit well on her. It was only in this present appeal for judicial clemency that she has fully acknowledged her infractions and expressed remorse. We are, thus, unconvinced that she had sufficient time to repent and reform herself considering that it was just recently that she had fully acknowledged her infractions.
Caballero alleged that since her dismissal from the service which occurred more than six (6) years ago, she has devoted her time and effort in pursuing civic work and made charitable contributions. In support of the instant appeal for judicial clemency, she claimed that she has been active in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Legal Outreach Programs such as tree planting, jail visitations, and other activities, as evidenced by the Certification issued by Atty. Vicente C. Andiano, then IBP President for the IBP-North Cotabato Chapter from 2011-2013. However, we find said Certification to be mere pro-forma as it lacks specific details such as actual dates of activities when Caballero has supposedly participated on and/or photos of the said activities.
In another Certification dated February 21, 2017, Atty. Dionesio T. Alave, Jr., IBP-President, IBP North Cotabato Chapter certified that Caballero has been an active participant in all their legal aids and community service programs, to wit: (1) free legal consultation for indigent clients in August 2016 at DXND Auditorium, Kidapawan City; and (2) legal aid for farmers after the rally and dispersal on April 1, 2016 in Kidapawan City. Likewise, the City Mayor of Kidapawan City, Joseph A. Evangelista, issued a Certification dated March 23, 2017 stating that Caballero is an active member and one of the Board of Directors of DAMAYAN SA KIDAPAWAN, INC., which supports Kidapawan City in its effort to maintain peace and order. However, while these can be considered as proof of reformation, it must be pointed out that these specific activities which Caballero participated in all happened within the years of 2016-2017 only. Considering this short period of time, We are, thus, unconvinced that said activities albeit significant are already sufficient to ensure that Caballero has indeed successfully reformed herself.
Again, while We commiserate with Caballero's unfortunate financial situation considering that she had suffered stroke on November 7, 2016 due to "Cerebral Ischemic Infarction," and is still recuperating from such, We, however, cannot grant her the clemency she is appealing for. Considering the gravity of Caballero's transgressions, there is a stronger need for proof of reformation and sufficient time to ensure reformation. It becomes more imperative to require factual support for her allegations of remorse and reform. 8 Judicial clemency, as an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts. 9
The Court has come down hard and wielded the rod of discipline against members of the Judiciary who have fallen short of the exacting standards of judicial conduct. 10 Judicial clemency is not a privilege or a right that can be availed of at any time, as the Court will grant it only if there is a showing that it is merited. 11 Proof of reformation and sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation are indispensable.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, although We recognize Caballero's efforts to reform herself, this Court believes that she has not yet fully complied with the standards and guidelines set forth in Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for Judicial Clemency12 for the grant of judicial clemency. We are, thus, constrained at the moment to deny her appeal for judicial clemency. AaCTcI
WHEREFORE, the petition for judicial clemency is DENIED." Velasco, Jr., J., no part. Bersamin, J., on official leave. Jardeleza and Gesmundo, JJ., on leave. (adv14)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 147-164.
2.Id. at 163.
3.Id. at 400.
4.Id. at 578.
5.Id. at 582-589.
6.Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for Judicial Clemency, 560 Phil. 1 (2007).
7.Id. at 5-6. (Emphasis ours)
8.Ali v. Pacalna, 722 Phil. 112, 117 (2013).
9.Supra note 6, at 5.
10.Id. at 4.
11.Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Villalon-Pornillos, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2183 (Resolution), February 14, 2017.
12.Supra note 6.