In an eight-page decision penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the High Court’s first division found Judge Jaime D. Rafer of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Talisay-Laurel, Batangas guilty of impropriety.
Court records showed that Rafer issued four checks amounting to P672,000 to complainant Violeta N. Beltran.
The money was a reimbursement for the down payment made by Beltran for the aborted sale of Rafer’s apartment in Pandacan, Manila.
"Respondent Judge admits having issued checks, in a commercial transaction, drawn against his account which on the due date of the checks did not have sufficient funds to cover the value of the checks. By doing so, he acted with obvious impropriety in disregard of the strict standards of conduct of his high office," the High Court said.
The SC did not give credence to Rafer’s contention that the administrative case against him should be considered closed and terminated after he had conveyed parcels of land in Labo, Camarines Norte to Beltran.
It said the administrative proceedings are not subject to compromise.
"To allow parties to dictate the course of disciplinary investigations would render hollow the Court’s power of supervision over court officials and employees and prejudice public service," the High Court said.
In a separate resolution, the High Court’s third division reprimanded lawyer Orven K. Ontalan, Clerk of Court V of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City Branch 163 and Noel B. Bacarro, Clerk III of Cagayan de Oro City Municipal Trial Court (MTC) for habitual tardiness.
The SC warned Ontalan and Bacarro that repetition of their habitual tardiness would be dealt with more severely.
The High Court cited that civil service memorandum circular no. 23, series of 1998, provides that "any employee shall be habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness regardless of the number of minutes, 10 times a month for at least two months in a semester or at least two consecutive months during the year."
Ontalan incurred 13 tardiness in August through Oct. 18 last year.
In his defense, Ontalan said he filed an application for change of working hours with the Office of the Court Administrator and started to report at the requested time in October last year believing that it was approved.
Ontalan said he later learned that it was approved only in November last year.
On the other hand, Bacarro incurred tardiness totaling to 95 times for the period of over six months in 2002 and 2003.
Bacarro, in his defense, said that he was attending to his ailing father, but did not give any explanation for his tardiness in 2003.
"Court officials and employees should at all times strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible," the SC said.