AM P 99 1347; (February, 2001) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-99-1347. February 6, 2001. JUDGE PANCRACIO N. ESCAÑAN and GLORIA M. JAMERO, complainants, vs. INOCENTES M. MONTEROLA II, Clerk of Court II, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Gloria M. Jamero was convicted of slight physical injuries and sentenced to twenty days of arresto menor and a fine. Immediately after the promulgation of the decision on February 19, 1997, she manifested her intention to appeal and went home. That same afternoon, however, policemen arrested Jamero at her house and detained her in the municipal jail. She was released three days later only after being forced by the respondent Clerk of Court, Inocentes M. Monterola II, to sign a prepared “waiver” stating she voluntarily submitted herself for protection. The arresting officers testified they acted upon the direct order of respondent Monterola.
Respondent denied ordering an arrest, claiming he merely sought police assistance to safeguard Jamero from a mysterious death threat. He alleged the complaints were orchestrated by Judge Escañan due to prior disagreements over administrative matters and that Jamero was influenced to file the case for monetary gain. The investigating executive judge found respondent’s version not credible.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Clerk of Court is administratively liable for causing the arrest and detention of an accused without a court order.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of grave misconduct and usurpation of judicial function warranting dismissal. The Supreme Court affirmed the investigating judge’s finding that respondent caused Jamero’s arrest and detention. The legal logic is clear: the authority to order the arrest and commitment of a convicted person pending appeal is a judicial function. A clerk of court, as an administrative officer of the court, possesses no such judicial power. By directing the police to arrest and detain Jamero without any order from the presiding judge, respondent unlawfully arrogated unto himself a power exclusively vested in the judiciary.
This act constitutes grave misconduct, which involves a wrongful intention and a conscious violation of the law or established rules. Respondent’s claim of a good motive—safekeeping from a threat—was correctly rejected as a mere afterthought and pretext, especially given the coercive circumstances of the fabricated waiver. The Court emphasized that no position demands greater moral righteousness than a judicial office, and all personnel involved in the dispensation of justice must be individuals of competence, honesty, and probity. For grossly overstepping his authority and undermining the integrity of court proceedings, respondent’s dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from re-employment in government is justified.