G.R. No. RTJ-01-1633; June 19, 2001
Spouses Antonio and Elsa Fortuna, complainants, vs. Judge Ma. Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca and Roy P. Murallon, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 35, Ozamis City, respondents.

FACTS

The complainants, Spouses Antonio and Elsa Fortuna, charged Judge Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca and Branch Clerk of Court Roy P. Murallon with partiality, abuse of discretion, and negligence concerning Criminal Case No. RTC-1503 for Murder. They alleged that after the case was submitted for decision on September 18, 1997, it remained undecided for two years due to an order suspending proceedings. They also charged the respondents with abuse of discretion for accepting a fictitious bail bond filed by the father/counsel of the accused. Respondent Judge admitted her error in approving the fake bail bond, stating she took “absolute and sole responsibility for the blunder born of neglect,” and explained she suspended the case resolution pending a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, acknowledging that an injunction was normally required. Respondent Branch Clerk detailed receiving a photocopy of the bail bond and an original Order of Release, issuing an Order of Discharge upon the Judge’s instruction, and later discovering through correspondence that no such bail bond existed in the records of the issuing court.

ISSUE

The primary issue involves the respondents’ administrative liability for negligence and abuse of discretion in (1) improperly suspending the proceedings of a criminal case submitted for decision, and (2) approving a fictitious bail bond without following proper judicial procedures, particularly in a capital offense.

RULING

The Court found respondent Judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure. She failed to exercise the required judicial diligence in granting bail for a capital offense, as she approved the bail bond without conducting a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt was strong, which is a mandatory procedural requirement. Her suspension of the case resolution pending a petition for certiorari, without a writ of injunction, also constituted undue delay in rendering a decision. The Court emphasized that utmost diligence is required in granting bail, especially in non-bailable offenses, and that judicial discretion must be exercised regularly, legally, and within procedural due process after evaluation of prosecution evidence. Respondent Branch Clerk was found to have performed his ministerial duty in issuing the release order based on the Judge’s instructions and the documents presented, and thus was not administratively liable. The formal investigation was dispensed with due to the Judge’s admissions.