AM P 99 1302; (February, 2001) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-99-1302. February 28, 2001. JUDGE PLACIDO B. VALLARTA, MCTC, Cabiao-San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, complainant, vs. YOLANDA LOPEZ Vda. de BATOON, Clerk of Court, MCTC Cabiao-San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, respondent.
FACTS
Judge Placido B. Vallarta charged his Clerk of Court, Yolanda Lopez Vda. de Batoon, with falsification and usurpation of judicial power. The complaint alleged that while the judge was on official leave, respondent caused the preparation and issuance of a duplicate original Order of Release in a criminal case, stamped “ORIGINAL SIGNED,” which led to the accused’s release from custody. The judge asserted he did not sign the original order and no cash bond was posted, thereby causing him to lose trust and confidence in the respondent.
In her defense, respondent claimed the judge had given her prior oral instructions to issue such orders stamped “ORIGINAL SIGNED” in his absence when a cash bond with complete supporting documents was filed, as was allegedly the case here. She maintained she acted within these instructions to facilitate the court’s work and prevent any accusation against the judge for unreported absence. The Office of the Court Administrator referred the case for investigation, which found respondent guilty of gross misconduct for encroaching on judicial authority.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Clerk of Court is administratively liable for issuing a release order stamped “ORIGINAL SIGNED” in the judge’s absence.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the investigating judge’s finding that respondent encroached upon the judge’s authority. The approval of bail and the order for release of a detained person are purely judicial functions. Under Section 5, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, a clerk of court may perform certain duties in the judge’s absence, such as receiving applications and issuing routine orders, but this does not extend to exercising judicial discretion on bail. A clerk may release an order “upon the order of the Judge” but cannot make it appear the judge signed it when he did not.
However, the Court modified the recommended penalty. It considered respondent’s steadfast claim of acting under perceived oral instructions, the absence of proven bad faith, malice, or corruption, and her unblemished 25-year service record. The Court concluded her actions likely stemmed from an overzealous, albeit misguided, attempt to perform her duties as instructed, rather than a willful intent to undermine judicial authority. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a stern warning, instead of a one-month suspension.