G.R. No. RTJ-15-2426. June 16, 2015.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. JUDGE ALEXANDER BALUT, Respondent.

FACTS

On May 3, 2003, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted judicial and financial audits in the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) of Bayombong and Solano, and the MCTC of Aritao-Sta. Fe, Nueva Vizcaya, where Judge Alexander Balut was the acting presiding judge. The judicial audit found undue delay in deciding 33 cases and resolving 101 motions. The financial audit revealed massive shortages in court collections:
1. In MTC Bayombong, Clerk of Court II Judith Salimpade had total shortages of ₱2,057,378.59 across various funds (Judiciary Development Fund, Clerk of Court General Fund, Fiduciary Fund). Salimpade explained that Judge Balut had been borrowing from the collections since 1995, and she lent money to co-employees from collections.
2. In MTC Solano, Clerk of Court Eduardo Esconde had shortages, and he stated that Judge Balut borrowed from court collections.
3. In MCTC Aritao-Sta. Fe, Clerk of Court Lydia Ramos reported that Judge Balut frequently requested money from Fiduciary Fund collections, with withdrawals evidenced by slips bearing his signature or notations like “for Judge.” Judge Balut issued a certification on May 9, 2002, acknowledging his accountability of ₱207,774.42 with the Fiduciary Fund.
Partial restitution was made by Judge Balut and the clerks. In a Resolution dated October 9, 2007, the Court found Judge Balut guilty of undue delay and fined him ₱20,000, but deferred ruling on his liability for the financial audit, stating he was not given a chance to comment. The OCA sought reconsideration, noting Judge Balut had submitted a letter explaining his side. The Court then directed Judge Balut to comment and referred the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) for investigation. The CA recommended dismissal of the financial charges, citing lack of substantiated proof and that Judge Balut had already been penalized for delay. The Supreme Court disagreed with the CA’s recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Alexander Balut is administratively liable for gross misconduct due to his involvement in the financial shortages of court collections.

RULING

Yes, Judge Alexander Balut is guilty of gross misconduct. The Supreme Court found substantial evidence that Judge Balut borrowed money from court funds, based on the categorical statements of three clerks of court and supporting documents, including withdrawal slips and his own certification acknowledging accountability. His actions constituted gross misconduct, dishonesty, and gross ignorance of the law, tarnishing the judiciary’s integrity. The Court imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and prejudice to re-employment in any government agency. This penalty was imposed despite a prior fine for undue delay, as the financial misconduct constituted a separate and grave offense. The Court ordered Judge Balut to cease and desist from performing judicial functions immediately.