Case Digest: EXECUTIVE JUDGE VILLASOR v. JUDGE BONIFACIO et al.

EXECUTIVE JUDGE EDWIN A. VILLASOR v. JUDGE RODOLFO R. BONIFACIO et al.

510 SCRA 46 (2006)

Accommodating a person at the expense of the legal processes tends to frustrate and betray the public trust in the judicial system.

Respondent Judge Rodolfo Bonifacio and Clerks of Court Rosalie San Juan and Arnel Leynes were all charged with Gross Misconduct, by Atty. Grace Belvis. Atty. Belvis alleges that they accepted a cash bond posted by a certain Rodolfo Lantano, an accused in one case filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City.

During the investigation, San Juan disclosed that, at about 6 o’ clock in the evening of July 22, 2004, she was approached by Leynes and a certain Atty. Naciongaling and was asked to issue a receipt on a cash bond for the release of one Rodolfo ―Rudy‖ Lantano. San Juan avers that she initially refused as it was way past working hours. However, after the daughter of the accused Lantano disclosed the latter’s health condition and pleaded for her to accommodate their request, out of compassion, she acceded and accepted the cash bond posted by said accused. San Juan maintained, however, that she had done so only after Leynes, for his part, had already furnished her with the Criminal Docket No. assigned to the Information filed against the accused Lantano.

Leynes, for his part, explained that he had accommodated the docketing of the Information filed by the prosecution at that hour, after he got the impression that the same was with the consent and approval of both the Prosecutor’s Office and Judge Bonifacio. Leynes went on to state further that, supposedly, Judge Bonifacio even directed him to enter the Information into the Criminal Docket despite the fact that the person in-charge of doing so was no longer around.

The Office of the Court Adminstrator (OCA) conducted the necessary investigation and recommended that Judge Bonifacio be made to show cause why he should not be administratively sanctioned anent the foregoing incident. In compliance, Judge Bonifacio submitted his explanation. The OCA then issued its recommendation dismissing the complaint against Judge Bonifacio while reiterating its recommendations against San Juan and Leynes.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Bonifacio et al.’s acts constituted Improper Conduct and for which they should all be sanctioned administratively

HELD:

No doubt, respondents Rosalie and Leynes are liable for simple misconduct. Misconduct has been defined as an unacceptable behavior that transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers.

The established norm of conduct for court employees has always been to maintain a hands-off attitude where unofficial and/or irregular dealings with party-litigants are concerned. Such an attitude is indispensable for two reasons: (1) to maintain the integrity of the courts, and (2) to free the court personnel from suspicion of any misconduct. For the conduct of each employee of a court of justice must, at all times, not only be characterized with propriety and decorum, but above all, beyond suspicion.

In one case where a utility worker, without authority of the trial court or branch clerk of court, and in his belief that he was doing public service, detached the bailbond and the accompanying documents from the record of the case and gave them to the representative of the therein accused, this Court found him guilty of simple misconduct.

Accommodating a person at the expense of the legal processes tends to frustrate and betray the public trust in the judicial system.