G.R. No. A.M. No. 23-MJ. July 29, 1977.
LORENZO FORMOSO, JR., complainant, vs. FRANCISCO ANTE, Municipal Judge of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Lorenzo Formoso, Jr. filed an administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Francisco Ante, alleging: (1) knowing consent to and acceptance of falsified bail bonds; (2) evident partiality and leniency in handling specific criminal cases; and (3) usurpation of the Executive Judge’s powers. The charges stemmed from the approval of bail bonds for accused Lucio Fabillaran in Criminal Cases Nos. 3692 and 3695, where the supporting documents were simple, uncertified copies of tax declarations and receipts. Respondent Judge, in his comment, defended his actions by asserting that the preparation and verification of bail bonds were clerical duties performed by the Clerk of Court’s office, and he merely examined the presented documents, finding them in order. He also justified his rulings on bail reductions by citing the fiscal’s recommendations and the strength of the evidence.
The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Natividad G. Adduru-Santillan, who, after multiple postponements and the complainant’s submission of the case without testimonial evidence, recommended dismissal based on the documentary evidence, finding the charges not proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Investigating Judge made critical observations regarding respondent’s neglect of his judicial responsibilities in approving bail bonds.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Francisco Ante is administratively liable for his actions in approving the questioned bail bonds.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable for negligence, warranting a reprimand. The Supreme Court found the specific charges of falsification, partiality, and usurpation unsubstantiated by the evidence. However, it emphasized the judge’s non-delegable duty in approving bail bonds. The legal logic centers on the judge’s personal responsibility under Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court. Sections 9 and 10 explicitly place the duty to ascertain the qualifications and sufficiency of sureties exclusively upon the judge, including the requirement to examine them under oath.
The Court rejected respondent’s defense that verification was a mere clerical job. While clerks may prepare documents, the judge bears the ultimate responsibility to ensure their correctness and veracity before approval. Respondent failed in this duty by accepting plain, uncertified copies of tax documents without the requisite sworn justification from the sureties. This negligence contravened Department of Justice Circulars (No. 44, series of 1958, and No. 2, series of 1964) mandating strict compliance with bail bond procedures. The Court held that a judge cannot blindly rely on subordinates or plead a heavy caseload as an excuse for haphazard performance, as such neglect opens the door to anomalies. Consequently, while the grave charges were dismissed, respondent was reprimanded for his failure to faithfully discharge his judicial duty and warned that future infractions would be dealt with more severely.