G.R. No. A.M. No. 95-6-55-MTC & A.M. No. P-96-1173; July 28, 1997
Case Parties: Re: Report on Audit and Physical Inventory of the Records of Cases in the Municipal Trial Court of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija. TERESITA ASTILLAZO, complainant, vs. ROLANDO JAMLID, Clerk of Court, MTC-Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija, respondent.

FACTS

This case involves two consolidated administrative matters originating from an audit of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija. The audit, conducted by a team from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), revealed multiple irregularities. Key findings included: 1) Several criminal cases had no initial action taken or no further action after warrants of arrest were issued and returned unserved; 2) Criminal Case No. 23-94 was deemed submitted for decision on July 27, 1994, but no decision had been rendered; 3) In Criminal Case No. 78-94 for Homicide, the case was provisionally dismissed based on an affidavit of desistance after the complainant was partially paid ₱35,000. The audit team discovered an official receipt (No. 6625649 M) for ₱30,000, issued by Clerk of Court Rolando Jamlid, purportedly as a cash deposit forming part of the consideration for dismissal. This amount was never reported to the proper revenue authorities and was in Jamlid’s possession. 4) The quarterly report for March 31, 1994, bore an illegible signature certifying its correctness, which appeared different from the signature of the then-presiding judge, Rodolfo de Guzman, who had resigned. Based on these findings, the OCA recommended withholding Judge de Guzman’s retirement benefits and requiring explanations from Jamlid. The Court, in a June 27, 1995 resolution, directed the withholding of Judge de Guzman’s benefits, directed Jamlid to explain his interference in the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 78-94 and the unreported cash deposit, and designated another judge to assist. Jamlid filed a reply-letter but failed to properly account for the ₱30,000, despite a demand from the depositor, Teresita Astillazo. He was subsequently suspended for failure to file a comment. Judge de Guzman sought reconsideration, arguing the cases were not submitted for decision and that subpoenas were unserved.

ISSUE

1. Whether Judge Rodolfo de Guzman should be held administratively liable for gross inefficiency and irregular termination of cases.
2. Whether Clerk of Court Rolando Jamlid should be held administratively liable for gross negligence, dishonesty, and malversation of funds related to his handling of court funds and interference in a case dismissal.

RULING

1. Regarding Judge Rodolfo de Guzman: The Court found him guilty of gross inefficiency and irregular termination of cases through amicable settlements. He failed to decide Criminal Case No. 23-94 within the 90-day period, failed to take initial action on several criminal cases, and failed to take further action after warrants of arrest were returned unserved. His excuses were deemed unacceptable. The Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
2. Regarding Clerk of Court Rolando Jamlid: The Court found him guilty of gross negligence, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. His failure to turn over the ₱30,000 cash deposit, which he admitted keeping, constituted gross negligence, dishonesty, and malversation of funds. This act eroded public trust in the judiciary. Pursuant to relevant administrative rules, the penalty for such grave offenses is dismissal. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED Rolando Jamlid from the service, with forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement benefits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency. He was also directed to remit the ₱30,000 to the Court’s Revenue Collection Section within thirty days.
3. Additional Directive: Judge Geminiano A. Eduardo, designated as acting presiding judge, was directed to take necessary action on the criminal cases identified in the audit where no initial or further action had been taken.