AM CA 04 37; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. CA-04-37; March 16, 2004
JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, complainant, vs. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE RODRIGO V. COSICO, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Judge Pablo B. Francisco charged then Executive Judge Rodrigo V. Cosico with grave misconduct for allegedly usurping the Supreme Court’s constitutional appointing power. The controversy arose from Judge Cosico’s letter dated March 1, 1994, detailing Ireneo S. Paz as a Special Deputy Sheriff to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna. This action was taken upon the request of Presiding Judge Stella Cabuco Andres, whose court lacked a sheriff to serve processes after the previous detailed municipal employee was appointed to a permanent post elsewhere. It was subsequently established that at the time of this detail, Paz was concurrently employed as a Laborer II by the Municipality of Biñan, Laguna.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, in his former capacity as Executive Judge, committed grave misconduct by detailing a municipal employee as a Special Deputy Sheriff.
RULING
The Court exonerated respondent Justice Cosico. The legal logic proceeds from an examination of his authority and intent. First, the act of detailing was within the scope of an Executive Judge’s delegated administrative powers under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12, dated October 1, 1985. This circular explicitly allows a judge to “designate or deputize any person to serve court processes and writs in remote areas in the absence of the regular sheriff thereat.” Given the attested vacancy that crippled court operations, Cosico’s action was a necessary and authorized response to an exigency of service.
However, the Court clarified that detailing a person already employed in another government branch was improper, as it risked compromising judicial standards and disregarded the principle of separation of powers, as highlighted in OCA v. Veneracion. Nevertheless, for grave misconduct to lie, the act must be corrupt or demonstrate a persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. The evidence showed Cosico acted in good faith to address a critical operational void, following a pre-existing practice inherited from his predecessor. There was no showing of a corrupt motive or a willful intent to violate the law. Thus, while the detail of a municipal employee was irregular, it did not rise to the level of an administratively actionable offense under the circumstances.