AM RTJ 98 1421; (May, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. RTJ-98-1421 May 9, 2000
Marietta A. Padilla, complainant, vs. Judge Salvador D. Silerio, Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Ligao, Albay, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Marietta A. Padilla, a court legal researcher, filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct and dishonesty against respondent Judge Salvador D. Silerio. The charges stemmed from irregularities in the handling of cash bonds in two criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. In Criminal Case No. 6623, accused Arlene Duran posted a P1,000 cash bond under Official Receipt No. 3320162. Upon the case’s dismissal, the bond was properly released. In Criminal Case No. 6644, accused Mary Jane Prieto also posted a P1,000 cash bond, but the court issued the same Official Receipt No. 3320162. When Prieto’s case was later dismissed, no bond could be released as the record indicated the amount had already been disbursed for Duran’s case. Complainant also alleged respondent judge engaged in daily drinking sprees within the Hall of Justice during office hours, presiding over trials while intoxicated.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Salvador D. Silerio is administratively liable for negligence in the approval of a spurious cash bond and for habitual drunkenness.
RULING
The Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of negligence but dismissed the charge of habitual drunkenness for lack of substantiation. The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s evaluation that there was insufficient evidence to directly implicate the judge in the anomaly of the duplicate receipt number. However, the judge was liable for carelessness and failure to exercise due diligence. A judge cannot sign orders, such as one approving a cash bond, without careful scrutiny, nor can he take refuge behind the excuse of relying on his staff. His position demands professional competence and high standards of public service. The cavalier attitude in affixing his signature to court documents without proper verification is inexcusable negligence. Regarding the drinking charges, while the Code of Judicial Ethics mandates conduct free from impropriety, the allegation remained unproven. Considering the circumstances, the Court modified the OCA’s recommended penalty. Respondent judge, who had already optionally retired, was fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), deductible from his withheld retirement benefits.