A.M. No. MTJ-02-1436; April 3, 2003
Jaime C. Taran, complainant, vs. Judge Jose S. Jacinto, Jr., respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jaime C. Taran, father of an accused in a direct assault case pending before respondent Judge Jose S. Jacinto, Jr. of the MCTC of Lubang-Looc, Occidental Mindoro, filed an administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law and violation of human rights. The allegations included that the judge gave due course to a complaint without the required barangay certification, issued an alias warrant without giving the accused an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit, and conducted proceedings without notice. Complainant also asserted that the judge refused surety bonds, demanded money, and failed to issue an official receipt for a cash bail posted. Crucially, it was alleged that respondent judge routinely issued orders and subpoenas by telephone, which court personnel would then reduce to writing and stamp “original signed,” even on days when the judge was not physically present in court.
In his comment, respondent judge denied the substantive allegations regarding missing certifications and unreceipted bail, presenting evidence to counter them. He justified his practice of telephonic orders by explaining his limited physical presence at the court as a judge-designate, holding office only one week per month. He contended this procedure allowed for expeditious justice administration, citing the release order for the accused as an example done by phone. He emphasized his 15 years of unblemished government service.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose S. Jacinto, Jr. is administratively liable for his actions and procedures in handling Criminal Case No. 2641 and for supervising his court personnel.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable, but not for all charges. The Court, adopting the findings of the Court Administrator, exonerated respondent on several counts. The complaint’s allegations regarding the lack of barangay certification, defective preliminary examination, and issuance of the arrest warrant were without merit. Preliminary examination can be conducted ex parte, and the records showed respondent personally examined the complainant under oath. The claim of unreasonable bail and refusal to accept property bonds were unsubstantiated.
However, respondent was found liable for two specific violations. First, for failure to ensure strict compliance with Supreme Court Circular No. 26-97, which mandates that original copies of official receipts for payments like cash bail must be released to the payor, not retained in the case folder. As presiding judge, he had a duty to supervise his clerk of court to adhere to this directive. Second, and more significantly, for the practice of issuing orders via telephone. The Court ruled that a judge’s order or decision attains juridical existence only when set down in writing, signed, and promulgated. The procedure of dictating orders by phone for staff to write and stamp “original signed” circumvents this fundamental rule, regardless of the intent to expedite proceedings. This violates Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court. These infractions constitute less serious offenses under the Rules of Court. Consequently, the Court found respondent judge guilty and imposed a fine of Eleven Thousand Pesos (P11,000.00) with a stern warning.