THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-13-3107. February 20, 2013.][Formerly A.M. No. 05-3-68-MeTC]
(Incident Report on the Alleged Anomalies Committed by Atty. Miguel C. Morales, Former Clerk of Court III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 17, Manila)
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs. ATTY. MIGUEL C. MORALES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 20, 2013, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-13-3107 (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Atty. Miguel C. Morales) [Formerly A.M. No. 05-3-68-MeTC] (Incident Report on the Alleged Anomalies Committed by Atty. Miguel C. Morales, Former Clerk of Court III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 17, Manila). — The present administrative case stemmed from a letter dated March 1, 2004, of Ezra Olivero M. Lim, Court Legal Researcher and Acting Branch Clerk of Court of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 17, Manila, alleging incidents of falsification of public documents, usurpation of judicial functions, and malversation of property committed by Atty. Miguel Morales during his tenure as Branch Clerk of Court in said branch.
Lim claims that Atty. Morales issued Orders of Release in Criminal Cases Nos. 275730-34-CR and 355503-CR and recalled a warrant of arrest in Criminal Case No. 046442-CN without authority from then Branch 17 Presiding Judge William S. Peralta. He likewise claims that when he took over as Acting Clerk of Court, he discovered that one set of Lex Libris compact disc and the attendance logbook of the branch for the period January 2002 to October 2002 were missing. Hence, he requested for an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the incidents.
After investigation, it was found that there exists prima facie evidence to conclude that Atty. Morales had usurped the judicial prerogatives of Judge Peralta. 1
In the interim, Atty. Morales applied for optional retirement from the judiciary. Hence, on October 12, 2005, the Court issued a Resolution 2 approving the application of Atty. Morales for separation benefits, but held in abeyance the payment of the same pending resolution of the administrative matter filed against him. aSTAHD
Thereafter, Atty. Morales filed his Comment 3 raising double jeopardy and denial of due process. He claims that he had been similarly accused of usurpation of judicial functions in A.M. OCA No. 03-1561-P, but he was cleared of any liability in said case. Hence, he insists that he is being prosecuted for a cause of action that has already been resolved by the Court by way of dismissal of the charges against him.
On June 28, 2006, the Court referred the administrative matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation. 4
The OCA, on September 13, 2006, issued a Memorandum Report stating that there is no need for further investigation as the documents on file are sufficient to support the allegation of usurpation of judicial functions. It further held that the defense of double jeopardy is not meritorious.
On November 13, 2006, the Court issued a Resolution 5 assigning the case for investigation, report and recommendation. 6
After which, the OCA made the following recommendations:
In view of the foregoing, we respectfully submit for the consideration of the Honorable Court, the following recommendations:
(1) This administrative matter be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative complaint against Atty. Miguel C. Morales, former Clerk of Court III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 17, Manila, and he be found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct for usurping judicial functions;
(2) The benefits due to Atty. Morales, except accrued leave credits, if any, be FORFEITED in favor of the government;
(3) Atty. Morales be DISQUALIFIED from re-employment in any government agency or any government-owned or controlled corporation; and aESIDH
(4) This administrative matter be REFERRED to the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS against Atty. Morales for having committed an offense involving moral turpitude.
We concur with the findings of the OCA, but do not sustain the recommendation in its entirety. Although the acts committed by Atty. Morales are reprehensible, the other penalties recommended by the OCA are too harsh.
No less than the Constitution mandates that "public office is a public trust." In a long line of cases, the Court has untiringly reminded employees involved in the administration of justice to faithfully adhere to their mandated duties and responsibilities. Whether committed by the highest official or by the lowest member of the workforce, any act of impropriety can seriously erode the people's confidence in the judiciary. Thus, the Court does not hesitate to condemn and sanction such improper conduct, act or omission of those involved in the administration of justice that violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes or tends to diminish the faith of the public in the Judiciary. Service with loyalty, integrity and efficiency is required of all public officers and employees, who must, at all times, be accountable to the people. 7
One such office is that of the Clerk of Court. His office is the nucleus of activities, adjudicative and administrative, performing, among other functions, the keeping of records and seal, issuing of processes, entering judgments and orders and, upon request, the giving of certified copies from the records. The term "administrative" connotes or pertains to administration, especially management, as by managing or conducting, directing or superintending, the execution, application, or conduct of persons or things. Clerks of Court cannot be allowed to overstep their powers and responsibilities by exercising judicial functions. Judicial function is an act performed by virtue of judicial powers. The exercise of a judicial function is the doing of something in the nature of the action of the court. Judicial function presupposes the use of mental processes in the determination of law or fact, and at times involves discretion as to how the power should be used. 8
Here, it was clearly established that Atty. Morales only acted beyond his authority. Records would show that he acted on his own and without proper authority when he affixed his signature on both the Recall and Release Orders in several criminal cases. No less than the statement made by Judge Peralta, in an Affidavit dated June 20, 2005 and during cross-examination, had proven the fact that Atty. Morales was never authorized to sign Recall and Release Orders in criminal cases filed in his court while he was the Presiding Judge thereof. caIETS
Verily, approval of bail bonds and the subsequent issuance of orders for their release without the imprimatur of the Presiding Judge of the Court are not within the functions of a Clerk of Court. Hence, although it is within the authority of the Clerk of Court to issue such orders to the parties, such issuance must necessarily be made only upon authority of the Presiding Judge and not merely at the instance of the Clerk of Court.
All told, Atty. Morales is liable for his acts. No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than the judicial office. Those connected with the dispensation of justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility. Clerks of court in particular must be individuals of competence, honesty, and probity, charged as they are with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings. 9
However, it appears that Atty. Morales is no longer with the judiciary in view of his optional retirement; nonetheless, the Court has not lost its jurisdiction over his person as a court employee and as an officer of the court, being a lawyer. The approval of his application for separation benefits did not operate to divest the Court of its supervisory powers to discipline him as an errant official and former personnel of the judiciary. 10 Thus, Atty. Morales' earlier separation from the judiciary does not deter this Court from imposing upon the latter any sanctions which he deserves.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court resolves to FORFEIT, in favor of the government, all the benefits due to Atty. Miguel C. Morales, except accrued leave benefits, if any. (Velasco, Jr., J., no part, due to prior action as Court Administrator; Perez, J., designated Member per Raffle dated October 5, 2011.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 52-55.
2.Id. at 90.
3.Id. at 83-85.
4.Id. at 92.
5.Id. at 100-102.
6.Id. at 102.
7.Office of the Court Administrator v. Lometillo, A.M. No. P-09-2637 (formerly A.M. No. 08-12-682-RTC), March 29, 2011, 646 SCRA 542, 556.
8.Miñoso v. Pamulag, A.M. No. P-05-2067 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1851-P), August 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 407, 413-414; 505 Phil. 499, 505 (2005).
9.Rangel-Roque v. Rivota, A.M. No. P-97-1253, February 2, 1999, 302 SCRA 509, 521; 362 Phil. 136, 149 (1999).
10.Re: Report on the Examination of the Cash and Accounts of the Clerks of Court of the RTC and the MTC of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, A.M. No. 01-1-13-RTC, April 2, 2003, 400 SCRA 387, 390; 448 Phil. 464, 468 (2003).