Lenient and kind judge

A judge should be the embodiment of judicial competence or the “quality or state of being functionally adequate or having sufficient knowledge, judgment, skill or strength”. This is the kind of competence that Judge MT was found lacking in her approval of bail bonds in criminal cases.

Judge MT was the presiding judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Pateros and also designated as Acting Presiding Judge of the MeTC in San Juan. Based on a letter complaint against her regarding the alleged anomaly involving the approval of bail bonds in criminal cases, an investigation was conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) who found that between January 2003 to June 2004, Judge MT approved the bail bonds for criminal cases pending in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City with 34 of the accused detained in Pasig City, 7 in Taguig, 6 in San Juan and 1 in Pateros while the remaining 3 voluntarily surrendered to Judge MT herself.

Records show that more than a majority of the bonds approved by Judge MT had been secured from a bonding company that has been blacklisted by the Supreme Court, while the others secured from legitimate bonding companies involved accused charged in criminal cases pending outside her territorial jurisdiction.

When told to explain, Judge MT insisted on her innocence of the charges and related the circumstances surrounding the approval of the bonds. She said that when her attention was called about the supposed irregularity she immediately conducted an investigation and thereafter issued an office memorandum to MeTC Clerk of Court in San Juan (Elsa) to shed light on the anomaly. In response Elsa explained that she likewise followed standard office procedure although on many occasions, it was the process server (Mario) who retained possession of some documents corresponding to the orders of release. Mario in turn through his tugon/salaysay admitted his guilt and begged forgiveness.

Conceding that she might have been remiss in her duties with respect to the orders of release based on bail bonds issued by a blacklisted bonding company, Judge MT insisted that she had just been “too trusting” of some personnel of the MeTC in San Juan. She said that she has never transgressed the Code of Judicial Conduct with malicious intention and orchestrated plans of compromising the integrity of the judiciary but only that the court personnel had taken advantage of her leniency and kindness.

The investigating Judge found no evidence to support a finding of bad faith, dishonesty or deliberate intent to do injustice against Judge MT and recommended that she be just admonished for her gross negligence. On the other hand, the OCA found her guilty of simple misconduct and ordered her to pay a fine of P10,000. Was the OCA correct?

Judge MT did not competently act in approving the questioned bail bonds. She was still bound to review the supporting documents before approving the bail bonds even if it is the Clerk of Court who has the duty to ascertain that said bonds are in order and that all requisites for approval have been complied with. A judge should carefully pore over all documents before signing and giving them official imprimatur. A judge is inexcusably negligent if he fails to observe diligence, prudence and circumspection that the law requires in the performance of his duties or the rendition of any public service.

Judge MT’s excuse of simply relying on the representation of the court personnel who unfortunately took advantage of her kindness and leniency betrayed a deficiency in that requisite degree of circumspection demanded of all those who don the judicial robe. Such reliance was in fact her admission of being neglectful and of lacking diligence in attending to matters brought to her for signature.

Although her approval of the bail bonds and her issuance of the orders of release without authority to do so manifested a degree of incompetence, she is only guilty of simple neglect of duty and not simple misconduct. A judge like her frequently stumbles into pitfalls when detailed in another station. Several circumstances also mitigate her liabilities. First the process server Mario admitted his liability and exonerated her of any participation in or knowledge of the anomalous scheme. Second she immediately took steps to frontally deal with it. And third this is her first offense. Such mitigating circumstances coupled with her good performance record warrants the imposition of the the penalty of reprimand pursuant to Section 11 C, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court (In re complaint against Hon. Marilou Runes-Tamang, Presiding Judge, MeTC Pateros and MeTC SanJuan, A.M. Mtj-04-1558, April 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 428).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at:[email protected]