G.R. No. RTJ-15-2426, June 16, 2015
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Alexander Balut

FACTS

This administrative case originated from an audit of court funds. In the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Clerk of Court II Judith En. Salimpade was found to have a shortage of ₱2,057,378.59 as of August 31, 2003. In the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Aritao-Sta. Fe, the accountability of former Clerk of Court Eduardo S. Esconde showed a shortage of ₱58,100.00, while his successor, Lydia Ramos, had fully settled her accountability by August 2004. During the audit, the accountable officers revealed that respondent Judge Alexander Balut had borrowed money from their court collections, which they accommodated out of fear. Judge Balut borrowed funds from both stations, but he subsequently returned ₱240,000.00 to the MTC of Bayombong (for which Salimpade issued a certification of full settlement) and ₱207,774.42 to the MCTC of Aritao-Sta. Fe as of May 9, 2002. Judge Balut had been in the judiciary for nearly 22 years, having been promoted from an MCTC Judge in Nueva Vizcaya in 1993 to a Regional Trial Court Judge in Quezon City in 2005.

ISSUE

Whether the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on Judge Alexander Balut for gross misconduct should be mitigated due to the presence of mitigating circumstances.

RULING

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Lucas P. Bersamin argued that while Judge Balut committed a grave offense by “dipping his fingers into the judicial funds,” which constituted gross misconduct, certain mitigating circumstances warranted a reduction of the penalty from dismissal to suspension. The mitigating circumstances cited were: (1) Judge Balut had no intention to misappropriate or steal the funds, as evidenced by his willingness to sign for the “borrowings” and issue certifications, indicating an intent to repay; (2) he had fully restituted the borrowed amounts; and (3) he had nearly 22 years of service in the judiciary, with a promotion indicating prior satisfactory performance. Justice Bersamin cited jurisprudence, including Perez v. People, where restitution was considered a mitigating circumstance akin to voluntary surrender, and Arganosa-Maniego v. Salinas, where the Court refrained from imposing dismissal due to factors like length of service, acknowledgment of infractions, and restitution. He also referenced In the Matter of the Report on the Financial Audit on the Books of Accounts of Mr. Delfin T. Polido, where a judge was fined instead of dismissed for a shortage after restitution. Consequently, Justice Bersamin voted to suspend Judge Balut from office without pay for two years, instead of dismissing him from service.