Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental

EN BANC

[A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC. March 13, 2018.]

RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, MISAMIS ORIENTAL

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedMARCH 13, 2018, which reads as follows: HESIcT

"A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC — Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental.

RESOLUTION

This treats of Judge Bonifacio M. Macabaya's (Judge Macabaya) Motion for Reconsideration on [sic] the [Court's] Decision dated December 5, 2017 (MR). 1

In the Decision 2 dated December 5, 2017 (Decision), this Court found Judge Macabaya guilty of gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law and procedure for his inordinate delay in deciding cases and resolving incidents, for not taking appropriate action regarding dormant cases, for committing errors and irregularities in several orders, and for allowing his wife to have access to court records and interfere with court business. For these infractions, the Court imposed a mitigated penalty of a fine equivalent to two months' salary, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Moreover, this Court directed Judge Macabaya to (1) submit Decisions, Resolutions, or Orders on a number of cases, (2) create, maintain, and regularly update a judgment book, book of entries, and execution book, (3) update his court's docket books, (4) update and make the necessary corrections in his court's docket inventory report, (5) ensure accuracy of monthly reports, (6) minimize his wife's presence in court and to disallow his wife to have access to court records, 3 (7) continue trial with dispatch on two criminal cases, and (8) recall the November 22, 2011 Order in Crim. Case No. 2011-888 entitled People v. Jabinao. 4

In the present motion for reconsideration, Judge Macabaya seeks a complete exoneration from administrative liability. Judge Macabaya expresses "extreme shock and disgust" 5 claiming that the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), particularly the Office of Deputy Court Administrator Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino (DCA Delorino), erred (a) in attributing to him the issuance of the twin Orders dated September 26, 2006 relative to Crim. Case Nos. 2000-260 and 2000-316, entitled People v. Alba, and Crim. Case Nos. 2002-098 and 2002-100 also entitled People v. Alba (which ordered the arrest of the accused therein and delegated the reception of the prosecution evidence ex parte to the Clerk of Court) when the same was actually rendered by his predecessor, Judge Gregorio Pantanosas (Judge Pantanosas); 6 and (b) in finding his November 22, 2011 Order in Crim. Case No. 2011-888, which directed the accused therein to secure another bail bond, violative of the law.

There is absolutely no reason or basis for Judge Macabaya's "shock" and "disgust."

As early as April 19, 2013, the OCA already tasked Judge Macabaya to comment on the seeming irregularities and errors noted in the aforementioned orders. On December 1, 2014, this Court no less directed him, after more than a year of non-compliance, to show cause and comply with all the directives contained in the April 19, 2013 Memorandum. 7 However, in all his so-called compliance reports and other pleadings filed before this Court, Judge Macabaya never made any comment as regards the aforesaid Orders. In short, not only did Judge Macabaya waste all the opportunities given him to submit his comments thereon; he also defied the directives of the Court. In fact, his non-compliance to comment on the aforesaid Orders and on the presence and interference of his wife, among others, bordered on insubordination and misconduct. Records bear out that it is only now that Judge Macabaya cries foul over the findings of the audit team anent said Orders.

In any event, his arguments fail to persuade us.

Anent the twin Orders dated September 26, 2006 in Crim. Case Nos. 2000-260, 2000-316, 2000-098, and 2002-100 which were allegedly issued by his predecessor, Judge Pantanosas, he (Judge Macabaya) could have issued the necessary and appropriate order rectifying the erroneous twin orders. Unfortunately, Judge Macabaya simply ignored the same and brushed it off as something that was of no concern him.

As heads of the courts they are assigned to, judges are tasked to ensure that justice is served in every case raffled to their branch. That a case was previously raffled and heard by their predecessor does not extenuate a judge's liability. This responsibility is a necessary consequence of this Court's time-honored dictum that judges have the "bounden duty to maintain proper monitoring of cases submitted for his decision or resolution. A judge ought to know the cases submitted to him for decision or resolution and is expected to keep his own record of cases so that he may act on (or correct them) them promptly." 8

As presiding judge of RTC-Branch 20 which issued the assailed Orders, it was incumbent upon Judge Macabaya to make the necessary corrections as soon as the matter was brought to his attention. Judge Macabaya cannot simply wash his hands clean of any responsibility. Again, it was because of his convenient way of disregarding all other issues concerning his court that led to this predicament.

As for the Order in Crim. Case No. 2001-888 where RTC-Branch 20 incorrectly directed the accused to secure another bail bond given that the accused's bail bond had expired, this Court finds Judge Macabaya's excuse unacceptable. In his MR, Judge Macabaya merely insists that A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC on the proposed guidelines on corporate surety bonds does not apply to him. 9 This is far from the truth. The said administrative matter is addressed to "all judges, clerks of court and sheriffs of the judiciary." Moreover, the pertinent portion of the administrative matter quoted by Judge Macabaya himself, stating that "the lifetime or duration of the effectivity of any bond issued in criminal and civil actions/special proceedings, or in any proceeding or incident therein shall be from its approval by the court, until the action or proceeding is finally decided, resolved or terminated," 10 even emphasizes the flaw in the November 22, 2011 Order. caITAC

Considering the foregoing, there is no rhyme or reason for Judge Macabaya to demand from this Court to require the Office of DCA Delorino to "show cause why [it] should not be held administratively and legally liable x x x for [its] negligence, incompetence x x x." 11

Next, Judge Macabaya asks this Court "to look anew into the accuracy of DCA Delorino's report that he did not submit proof of compliance with the directives for him to submit the list of cases that he has already decided" 12 and "beseech[es] the grace of the Honorable Court [to allow him] to explain his side." 13

As already mentioned, the Court has benevolently extended to Judge Macabaya several opportunities to explain his side, spanning from 2013 up to December 2017 when the Court rendered its assailed Decision. To reiterate, Judge Macabaya wasted all these opportunities given him. Hence, he is in no position to again beseech the benevolence of this Court for another opportunity to explain. After all, the benevolence of this Court is not without limits.

In any event, contrary to the belief of Judge Macabaya, this Court has considered each and every single pleading he submitted and has compared the same to the reports of the OCA. It was precisely because of this Court's separate review of Judge Macabaya's submissions that led us to require Judge Macabaya to submit proof that he had disposed of the cases listed in this Court's Decision. It cannot be gainsaid that this Court made its own independent investigation over the instant administrative case.

It may be well to note that this Court even clearly enumerated the 29 cases which Judge Macabaya must submit within 30 days from receipt of the Decision, but Judge Macabaya only submitted 15 judgments, decisions, or orders finally disposing of or archiving the cases. 14

	CASE NO.	TITLE	COMPLIANCE	REMARKS
1.	Crim. Case No. 2002-394	People v. Baylon	Non-compliant: submitted Order recalling RTC-Branch 20's previous order considering the case submitted for decision	The Order submitted was the same irregular Order submitted to this Court before this Court issued its Decision
2.	Crim. Case No. 2011-772	People v. Valledor	Submitted Decision dated Dec. 18, 2013	none
3.	Crim. Case No. 2011-909	People v. Tan	none	Burned prior to release
4.	Crim. Case No. 2012-732	People v. Mendoza	Submitted Decision dated Jan. 27, 2014	none
5.	Civil Case No. 2009-003	Heirs of Ramos v. Heirs of Abejuela	Non-compliant: submitted Order dated Nov. 16, 2015 setting the case for pretrial through the EJOW	Case is considered submitted for decision
6.	Civil Case No. 1971-3672	Pabito v. Nicolas	none	Attached a monthly report only
7.	Civil Case No. 1971-3673	Rustia v. Pabito	none	Attached a monthly report only
8.	Civil Case No. 1990-258	Integrated Rural Bank v. Acenas	Submitted Decision dated Nov. 13, 2014	none
9.	Civil Case No. 1995-403	Minda Dev't. Bank v. Sps. Rabaya	none	Burned prior to release
10.	Civil Case No. 1996-514	PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. Sps Lee	Submitted Judgment dated Oct. 28, 2014	none
11.	Civil Case No. 1996-521	BA Savings Bank v. Sps. Yap	Submitted Judgment dated Sept. 5, 2014	none
12.	Civil Case No. 1998-176	Mindanao Dev't. Bank v. Agcopra and Doe	Submitted Judgment dated Aug. 20, 2014	none
13.	Civil Case No. 2004-214	Veluz v. Morados	Submitted Decision dated Aug. 19, 2013	none
14.	Civil Case No. 2011-220	Tomarong v. P/Supt. Pimentel	Submitted Judgment dated Sept. 2, 2014	none
15.	LRC Nos. 1999-085, 2000-039, 2006-020	PHIVIDEC Industrial Authority as applicant	Submitted Judgments dated June 26, 2014; Aug. 8, 2014; and July 14, 2014	none
16.	Crim. Case No. 2004-100	People v. Manlunas	Submitted Decision dated June 23, 2014	none
17.	Civil Case No. 1992-503	Republic v. Yanez	none	Burned prior to release
18.	Civil Case No. 1996-167	Dumdum v. Dumdum	Submitted Order dated April 22, 2014	none
19.	Civil Case No. 2002-195	Shoreline Environment Asso., Inc. v. Reyes	none	Only attached monthly report
20.	Civil Case No. 2002-290	Asset Pool v. Sps. Forster	none	Only attached monthly report
21.	Civil Case No. 2006-123	Sps. Nera v. Tobias	none	Only attached monthly report
22.	Civil Case No. 2011-062	Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc. v. Escauso	none	Alleged Order Submitted in MR is not attached as Annex
23.	Civil Case No. 2011-191	Sps. Encinareal v. Hult	Submitted Order dated Sept. 3, 2014	none
24.	Spec. Proc. Case No. 2010-135	Petitioner Santiago C. Sabal	Submitted Order dated Nov. 4, 2014	none
25.	Crim. Case No. 4804	People v. Roque	none	Judge Macabaya insists that the case is active despite this Court's ruling in its Decision
26.	Crim. Case Nos. 2005-103 to 107 and 2005-156 to 157	People v. Autor	Submitted Order dated July 9, 2014	none
27.	Crim. Case Nos. 2005-462 to 463	People v. Rosios	Submitted Order dated Jan. 14, 2014	none
28.	Crim. Case No. 2010-925	People v. Velez	none	Alleged Order submitted in MR is not attached as Annex
29.	Crim. Case No. 2011-323	People v. Gelam	Submitted Order dated July 24, 2014	none

Judge Macabaya's defiance of this Court's directive does not escape its attention. It even serves to validate the OCA's findings that not all cases were decided, resolved, or acted upon, contrary to Judge Macabaya's claims.

In Crim. Case No. 2002-394, Judge Macabaya only re-submitted an Order 15 recalling RTC-Branch 20's previous order declaring the case submitted for decision. This was not what this Court required of Judge Macabaya to do. This Court had been clear that Judge Macabaya was to submit a copy of his Judgment on the said case. This Court stated:

5. In Criminal Case No. 2002-394, Judge Macabaya issued an Order 16 dated June 28, 2013 recalling the previous order declaring the case submitted for decision on the ground that the records showed "that the prosecution has not yet presented their evidence." 17 However, the audit team noted that "this case may be considered as inherited since the hearing in this cases [sic] was entirely heard by the former judge, although the motion for reconsideration of the Order dated 15 [Sept]. 2013 denying the Formal Offer of Exhibits of the accused was only resolved on 15 Nov. 2011." 18 The audit team's observation runs counter to Judge Macabaya's findings that the prosecution has not yet presented its evidence. To date, no other order has been submitted to this Court regarding the status of the instant case. 19

At the very least, Judge Macabaya could have submitted pleadings to show why Crim. Case No. 2002-394 should not yet be considered submitted for decision. 20 Still, this he failed to do.

In Civil Case No. 2009-003, Judge Macabaya submitted an Order 21 dated November 16, 2015 and issued by Branch 38 of the RTC of Cagayan de Oro City whereby the case was set for pre-trial. 22 Given that the audit team previously noted this was one of the 74 cases submitted for decision, 23 it would be more prudent to have Judge Macabaya explain why Civil Case No. 2009-003 is now set for pre-trial. ICHDca

In Civil Case Nos. 1971-3672 and 1971-3673, Judge Macabaya merely attached a monthly report indicating that the said cases were decided on June 24, 2014. 24 The same goes for Civil Case Nos. 2002-195, 2002-290, 25 and 2006-123. This goes against this Court's instruction in its Decision that Judge Macabaya submit copies of the decision, resolution, or order in the abovementioned cases.

In Civil Case No. 2011-062, Judge Macabaya stated in his MR that a "[p]hotocopy of [the] Order dated 16 July 2013 . . . [is] hereto attached as Annex "14". 26 However, a review of the MR and its attachments shows that no such Order was submitted. The same was true as regards Crim. Case No. 2010-925. Judge Macabaya claimed that an Order dated December 3, 2014 was attached as Annex "21" but, in truth, it was not appended to the MR. 27

As for Crim. Case No. 4804, Judge Macabaya alleged that the same was an active case 28 contrary to the audit team's fording that the same was dormant, the last pleading being a Demurrer to Evidence received by RTC-Branch 20 of Cagayan de Oro, Misamis Oriental, on July 9, 2010. 29 With his bare allegation that the case was active vis-à-vis the audit team's unrefuted 30 report, this Court is more inclined to believe that Crim. Case No. 4804 was a dormant case which Judge Macabaya should have acted upon since the time the same was brought to his attention on April 19, 2013.

Next, Judge Macabaya lays the blame on Atty. Rullyn Garcia (Atty. Garcia), the head of the audit team, for his non-compliance with the rest of the directives contained in the April 19, 2013 Memorandum. 31 According to Judge Macabaya, Atty. Garcia already agreed that his (Judge Macabaya's) submission of copies of decisions/resolutions would suffice as compliance with the April 19, 2013 Memorandum.

Again, we are not persuaded.

Records bear out that this is the first instance that Judge Macabaya brought forth this "explanation"; this was never adverted to in any of the pleadings he submitted before this Court. More importantly, Judge Macabaya ought to have known that Atty. Garcia, on the assumption that the latter indeed gave such assurance, was not vested with such authority to do so. Judge Macabaya very well knew that it was the Court itself which issued said directives; thus, it is only the Court which can decide whether or not to set aside certain requirements. Besides, this explanation is too lame an excuse. It was very clear in the December 1, 2014 Resolution that the Court was directing Judge Macabaya to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily sanctioned for his continued and unjustified refusal to abide by its directives.

Judge Macabaya's claim of denial of due process is without basis. As early as April 19, 2013, the audit team already enumerated the audit exceptions and instructed Judge Macabaya to comment on the same. However, in response thereto, Judge Macabaya merely submitted compliances where copies of decisions, resolutions, or orders were attached without any explanation for the other items noted by the audit team. Notwithstanding the several reminders for him to comply with the other directives, Judge Macabaya had decided to turn a deaf ear. Thus, for him to claim he was deprived of due process is something that this Court will not tolerate, much less accept. In Re: Evaluation of Administrative Liability of Judge Lubao, 32 this Court held that:

It is gross misconduct, even outright disrespect for the Court, for respondent judge to exhibit indifference to the resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaint thoroughly and substantially. After all, a resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court's lawful order and directive. 33

Judge Macabaya claims that he "will never disrespect and disobey the Honorable Court" 34 but continues to defy this Court when he failed to submit the required decisions, resolutions, or orders. A judge who deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the resolution of this Court is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination. 35

In a last ditch attempt to make an issue over the instant administrative case, Judge Macabaya claims that an advance copy of our Decision was "circulated [through] social media and released to them from the Office of the Clerk of Court-RTC, Cagayan de Oro City." 36 Judge Macabaya complains of breach of confidentiality. This perversion of the truth on the part of Judge Macabaya can lead a reader to believe that the confidentiality of the instant case has been breached when, in fact, Judge Macabaya pertained to this Court's act of uploading soft/electronic copies of signed decisions in accordance with A.M. No. 12-7-1-SC. 37 That Judge Macabaya included this Court's link of the electronic copy of the said decision does not erase his act of hyperbolizing and making inappropriate insinuations regarding the integrity of this Court and its ability to keep administrative cases confidential. Judge Macabaya is thus reminded to be careful with the language he uses and the message he tries to convey in his pleadings before this Court.

To recap, Judge Macabaya was earlier found guilty of inordinate delay in deciding cases, resolving pending incidents, and in not taking appropriate action regarding dormant cases; in addition, he was found to have committed certain irregularities in the issuance of certain orders; he was also remiss in complying with the Court's directives. He also allowed his wife to interfere with the business of the court and have access to the records of the court. For all these infractions and more, he was merely meted the penalty of fine equivalent to two months' salary. Simply put, he was penalized lightly and treated benevolently. Despite these, and up until this moment, he has not fully complied with the Court's directives. Thus, his prayer that he be absolved from all administrative liability deserves no consideration at all. On the contrary, he is warned that his continued refusal to abide by this Court's directives might merit a harsher penalty in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DENY the motion for reconsideration for utter lack of merit.

The Manifestation and Reiterative Motion to Resolve 38 dated December 12, 2017 and the Manifestation 39 dated February 13, 2018 are hereby NOTED." Sereno, C.J., on leave. (adv16) TCAScE

 

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2308-2328.

2.Id. at 2239-2262; penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo with Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Estelita M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, Samuel R. Martires, Noel Gimenez Tijam, Andres B. Reyes, Jr., and Alexander G. Gesmundo, concurring. Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin was on official leave while Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza was on leave.

3.Id. at 2259-2261.

4.Id. at 2303.

5.Id. at 2309.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 722.

8.Unitrust Dev't. Bank v. Judge Caoibes, Jr., 456 Phil. 676, 682 (2003), citing Mamamayan ng Zapote 1, Bacoor, Cavite v. Balderian, 333 Phil. 190, 197 (1996).

9.Rollo, p. 2311.

10. Under Item VII of A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC.

11.Id. at 2313.

12.Id. at 2315.

13.Id. at 2322.

14. With the exception of Criminal Case Nos. 2005-103 to 107 and 2005-156 to 157 whereby Judge Macabaya granted the motion to transfer the case to a Family Court. Id. at 2395.

15. Rollo, p. 2399.

16. Id. at 167.

17. Id.

18. Id. at 6.

19. Id. at 2253.

20. Note that this was not one of the cases which records Judge Macabaya claims to have been razed by the fire that gutted the Regional Trial Court in January 30, 2015. See id. at 2257.

21. Id. at 2414-2415.

22. Id. at 2415.

23. Id. at 1, 4.

24. Id. at 2329.

25. Judge Macabaya posits that an Order dated August 8, 2013 was issued on the case without any description as to the said Order. A perusal of the Monthly report for July 2014 where the said case was allegedly included shows that the case is not reported therein. Id. at 2318, 2387-2388.

26. See id. at 2318.

27. See id. at 2319.

28. Id.

29. Id. at 20.

30. Unrefuted by Judge Macabaya until his salaries were withheld in a Resolution dated December 1, 2014.

31. Id. at 2322.

32. 785 Phil. 14 (2016).

33. Id. at 27, citing Re: Audit Report in Attendance of Court Personnel of Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Manila, 532 Phil. 51, 64 (2006), citing Imbang v. Del Rosario, 485 Phil. 466, 470 (2004).

34. Rollo, p. 2322.

35. Re: Evaluation of Administrative Liability of Judge Lubao,supra note 32 at 27-28, citing Alonto-Frayna v. Astih, 360 Phil. 385, 389 (1998).

36. Rollo, p. 2324.

37. Re: Decisions/Resolutions for Uploading to the SC Website.

38. Rollo, pp. 2420-2424.

39. Id. at 2462-2463.