Department of Social Welfare and Development vs. Belen

A judge violates Article 33 of Presidential Decree No. 603 and Supreme Court Circular No. 12 when he grants an adoption petition without notifying the DSWD and ensuring the DSWD’s required case study and recommendation; a court social welfare officer violates Circular No. 12 when she prepares the case study herself instead of coordinating with the DSWD. Good faith and the absence of proof of corruption may, however, warrant a liberal view in imposing administrative penalties.

The DSWD, Field Office No. 1, San Fernando, La Union, represented by Corazon M. Layug, initiated this administrative matter against Judge Antonio M. Belen of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Lingayen, Pangasinan, and Elma P. Vedaña, Social Welfare Officer II in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the same court. The controversy concerns the adoption of a minor by naturalized American citizens, over which Judge Belen presided and in which Vedaña served as the court social welfare officer. Article 33 of Presidential Decree No. 603 requires the DSWD to conduct a case study of the child, the natural parents, and the prospective adopting parents and to submit its report and recommendation before an adoption petition may be granted. Supreme Court Circular No. 12, dated October 2, 1986, complements Article 33 by directing Regional Trial Courts to notify the DSWD of adoption cases and to comply strictly with the case-study requirement, with the court social worker, if any, coordinating with the DSWD in the preparation and submittal of the case study.

Spouses Desiderio Soriano and Aurora Bernardo-Soriano, both naturalized American citizens, filed a verified petition for adoption of their niece, the minor Zhedell Bernardo Ibea, docketed as Special Proceeding No. 5830 of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 38. The case was assigned to respondent Judge Antonio M. Belen. In a decision dated June 25, 1992, Judge Belen granted the petition after finding the spouses highly qualified to adopt the child. He relied primarily on the “findings and recommendation of the DSWD that the adopting parents on the one hand and the adoptee on the other hand have already developed love and emotional attachment and parenting rules have been demonstrated to the minor.” On that basis, he dispensed with trial custody. According to the decision, those DSWD findings and recommendations were contained in the “Adoptive Home Study Report” and “Child Study Report” prepared by the local office of the DSWD through respondent Elma P. Vedaña, Social Welfare Officer II in the Office of the Clerk of Court.

Later, when the minor sought the requisite travel clearance from the DSWD to join her adoptive parents in the United States, the DSWD uncovered what it considered an anomalous adoption decree. Its records contained no entry regarding the adoption, and there was no order from Judge Belen for the DSWD to conduct a “Home and Child Study Report” in the case. Nor was there any directive from him for the social welfare officer of the lower court to coordinate with the DSWD on the required reports for the minor’s adoption. The adoption had never passed through the DSWD.

Because of this, the DSWD filed the present administrative complaint against Judge Belen, charging him with violating Article 33 of Presidential Decree No. 603, which requires that petitions for adoption be granted only after the DSWD has conducted and submitted a case study of the adoptee, the natural parents, and the adoptive parents. The DSWD also alleged that Vedaña had asked for an undisclosed amount of money from the adopting parents to expedite the adoption case with the DSWD.

In his comment, Judge Belen claimed that he directed Vedaña to conduct the home and case study and thereafter submit the required reports because those functions were among her duties under the Manual for Clerks of Court. Since those functions were provided to be performed by her, he saw no need to order her to coordinate with the DSWD, as he assumed it was routine procedure for her to do so. He further contended that, except for direct coordination with the DSWD in the preparation of the reports, no approval from the DSWD was necessary and it need not be furnished with the reports. He said he based his adoption decree not only on Vedaña’s recommendations but also on all the other evidence submitted in the adoption proceeding.

Vedaña, for her part, pointed out that there never was any directive from Judge Belen for her to coordinate with the DSWD concerning the adoption. She was only ordered to conduct the case study and submit her report to the court at least one week before the initial hearing, as was the practice in other Regional Trial Courts. She flatly denied that she ever asked for money from the prospective adoptive parents of the minor. The OCA later found no evidence that she sought any amount from the adopting parents, a finding the Court noted was supported by the affidavit of the child’s natural mother, Loreta Ibea.

• Failure to Comply with Article 33, PD 603: The DSWD charged Judge Belen with violating Article 33 of Presidential Decree No. 603 because the adoption was granted without the DSWD having conducted and submitted the required case study of the adoptee, the natural parents, and the adoptive parents.
• Failure to Notify or Coordinate with the DSWD: The DSWD alleged that there was no record of the adoption in its files, no order from Judge Belen for the DSWD to conduct a Home and Child Study Report, and no directive for the court social welfare officer to coordinate with the DSWD; the adoption never passed through the DSWD.
• Violation of Circular No. 12: The DSWD charged Vedaña with disregarding the provisions of Supreme Court Circular No. 12 in connection with the special proceeding.
• Solicitation of Money: The DSWD alleged that Vedaña had asked for an undisclosed amount of money from the adopting parents in order to expedite the adoption case with the DSWD.

• Judge Belen — Reliance on the Manual for Clerks of Court: Judge Belen claimed that he directed Vedaña to conduct the home and case study and submit the required reports because those functions were among her duties under the Manual for Clerks of Court.
• Judge Belen — No Need for DSWD Coordination: He argued that there was no need to order Vedaña to coordinate with the DSWD because he assumed it was routine procedure for her to do so; except for direct coordination, no DSWD approval was necessary and the DSWD need not be furnished with the reports.
• Judge Belen — Basis of the Adoption Decree: He maintained that he based the adoption decree not only on Vedaña’s recommendations but also on all the other evidence submitted in the adoption proceeding.
• Vedaña — No Directive to Coordinate: Vedaña pointed out that Judge Belen never directed her to coordinate with the DSWD; she was only ordered to conduct the case study and submit her report at least one week before the initial hearing, as was the practice in other Regional Trial Courts.
• Vedaña — Denial of Solicitation: She flatly denied that she ever asked for money from the prospective adoptive parents of the minor.

• Judge Belen — Violation of Article 33 and Circular No. 12: Whether Judge Belen is administratively liable for granting the adoption decree without the DSWD case study and without notifying or ensuring coordination with the DSWD as required by Article 33 of Presidential Decree No. 603 and Supreme Court Circular No. 12.
• Vedaña — Violation of Circular No. 12: Whether Vedaña is administratively liable for failing to coordinate with the DSWD and instead conducting the case study and recommending facts herself.
• Vedaña — Solicitation of Money: Whether Vedaña solicited money from the adopting parents.
• Penalty — Good Faith and Lack of Proof: Whether Judge Belen’s good faith and the absence of evidence of corruption warrant a liberal view in imposing administrative penalties.

• Judge Belen — Violation of Article 33 and Circular No. 12: Yes. Judge Belen was censured for violating Article 33 of Presidential Decree No. 603 and Circular No. 12. He should have notified the DSWD at the outset and ensured the DSWD conducted the case study; he could not merely presume that the court social welfare officer would coordinate.
• Vedaña — Violation of Circular No. 12: Yes. Vedaña was reprimanded for violating Circular No. 12. Her role was to coordinate with the DSWD in preparing and submitting the case study, not to conduct it and recommend facts herself.
• Vedaña — Solicitation of Money: No. There was no evidence that she sought any amount from the adopting parents; the OCA so found, and the allegation was belied by the affidavit of the child’s natural mother, Loreta Ibea.
• Penalty — Good Faith and Lack of Proof: Yes. Judge Belen was found to have acted in good faith, and no corruption was proved against Vedaña; the Court adopted a liberal view, imposing censure and reprimand with a stern warning.

• Judge Belen — Violation of Article 33 and Circular No. 12: Article 33 provides that no petition for adoption shall be granted unless the DSWD, or the Social Work and Counselling Division in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, has made a case study of the child, the natural parents, and the prospective adopting parents and has submitted its report and recommendations to the court. Circular No. 12 directs Regional Trial Courts to notify the Ministry of Social Services and Development, through its local agency, of the filing or pendency of adoption cases and to strictly comply with Article 33; the Staff Assistant V. (Social Worker) of the Regional Trial Courts, if any, shall coordinate with the Ministry representatives in the preparation and submittal of the case study. The proper course for Judge Belen was to notify the DSWD at the outset so that the DSWD could conduct the case study, since the DSWD has the necessary competence, more than the court social welfare officer, to make the proper recommendation. He should not have presumed that coordination was routine; it was his duty to exercise caution and see to it that coordination was observed together with all other legal requirements. His failure placed in jeopardy the welfare and future of the child. The Code of Judicial Conduct requires judicial competence, and judges must be abreast of the law and jurisprudence; Judge Belen failed to meet that expectation.
• Vedaña — Violation of Circular No. 12: Circular No. 12 required Vedaña to coordinate with the DSWD in the preparation and submission of the case study, not to make the case study and recommend by herself the facts on which the court was to act. She arrogated unto herself a matter that pertained exclusively to the DSWD. As an employee of a court of justice, she should have been aware of the scope of her duties and responsibilities and should have been familiar with current laws, rules, and regulations pertinent to her position. By her misfeasance, she compromised the prescribed process in the administration of justice.
• Vedaña — Solicitation of Money: The OCA found no evidence whatsoever that Vedaña sought to obtain any amount from the adopting parents. The Court agreed with that finding, noting that the allegation was belied by the affidavit of the child’s natural mother, Loreta Ibea. No liability for corruption was established.
• Penalty — Good Faith and Lack of Proof: The Court was persuaded that Judge Belen acted in good faith when he stated in his decision that the DSWD submitted the required reports to his court through Vedaña, presumably in the belief that it was standard procedure for the Social Welfare Officer II of a Regional Trial Court to do so in coordination with the DSWD. The Court also agreed that there was no evidence Vedaña sought any amount from the adopting parents. It therefore adopted a liberal view on the charges, imposing censure on Judge Belen and reprimand on Vedaña, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

• DSWD Case Study Requirement in Adoption (Article 33, PD 603) — No petition for adoption shall be granted unless the DSWD, or the Social Work and Counselling Division in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, has made a case study of the child to be adopted, his natural parents, and the prospective adopting parents, and has submitted its report and recommendations to the court hearing the petition. The DSWD shall intervene on behalf of the child if it finds, after the case study, that the petition should be denied. The Court applied this requirement against Judge Belen, who granted the adoption without the DSWD case study.
• Circular No. 12 Compliance and the Court Social Worker’s Coordination Role — Supreme Court Circular No. 12 directs Regional Trial Courts to notify the Ministry of Social Services and Development, through its local agency, of the filing or pendency of adoption cases and to strictly comply with Article 33 of PD 603. The Staff Assistant V. (Social Worker) of the Regional Trial Courts, if any, shall coordinate with the Ministry representatives in the preparation and submittal of the case study. The Court applied this to both respondents: Judge Belen failed to notify the DSWD and ensure coordination, while Vedaña failed to coordinate and instead conducted the study herself.
• Judicial Competence and Duty to Keep Abreast of the Law — The Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a magistrate be the embodiment of judicial competence, and judges must be faithful to the duty of being abreast with the law and jurisprudence because the administration of justice requires continuous study of law and jurisprudence. The Court found Judge Belen failed to meet this expectation.
• Administrative Liability of Court Personnel for Misfeasance — Court employees must be aware not only of the scope of their duties and responsibilities but also of current laws, rules, and regulations pertinent to their positions. Acting beyond those bounds compromises the prescribed process in the administration of justice. The Court applied this to Vedaña, who acted beyond her duties as a Social Welfare Officer II.
• Good Faith and Absence of Corruption as Mitigating Factors in Administrative Discipline — Where a judge acted in good faith and there is no evidence of corruption, the Court may adopt a liberal view and impose a lighter administrative penalty. The Court applied this by censuring Judge Belen and reprimanding Vedaña instead of imposing heavier sanctions.

• "No petition for adoption shall be granted unless the Department of Social Welfare, or the Social Work and Counselling Division, in case of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, has made a case study of the child to be adopted, his natural parents as well as the prospective adopting parents, and has submitted its report and recommendations on the matter to the court hearing such petition. The Department of Social Welfare shall intervene on behalf of the child if it finds, after such case study, that the petition should be denied." — This is the Court’s quotation of Article 33 of Presidential Decree No. 603, stating the mandatory DSWD case study and recommendation requirement that Judge Belen violated.
• "The Staff Assistant V. (Social Worker) of the Regional Trial Courts, if any, shall coordinate with the Ministry of Social Services and Development representatives in the preparation and submittal of such case study." — Quoted from Circular No. 12, this defines the court social worker’s limited role as coordination with the DSWD, not independent preparation of the case study.
• "The error on the part of both respondent judge and social worker is thus all too evident." — The Court’s conclusion that both respondents violated the adoption rules, after explaining that Judge Belen should have notified the DSWD and that Vedaña should have coordinated with it.
• "We are, however, persuaded that respondent judge acted in good faith when he stated in his decision that the DSWD submitted the required reports to his court through respondent Vedaña, presumably in the belief that it was standard procedure for the Social Welfare Officer II of a Regional Trial Court to do so in coordination with the DSWD." — This finding of good faith mitigated Judge Belen’s administrative liability and explains why the penalty was censure rather than a heavier sanction.

• Ting vs. Atal, A.M. MT-93-877, March 11, 1994, 231 SCRA 80 — Cited in support of the duty of judges to keep abreast of the law and jurisprudence; the Court used it to underscore the requirement of judicial competence and Judge Belen’s failure to meet it.

• Article 33, Presidential Decree No. 603 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code) — Requires the DSWD to conduct a case study of the child, the natural parents, and the prospective adopting parents and to submit its report and recommendations before an adoption petition may be granted; the DSWD may intervene on behalf of the child if it finds the petition should be denied. The Court applied this provision against Judge Belen, who granted the adoption without the required DSWD case study.
• Circular No. 12, Supreme Court, dated October 2, 1986 — Directs Regional Trial Courts to notify the Ministry of Social Services and Development, through its local agency, of the filing or pendency of adoption cases and to strictly comply with Article 33 of PD 603; the court social worker, if any, shall coordinate with the Ministry representatives in the preparation and submittal of the case study. The Court applied this circular to both Judge Belen and Vedaña.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Judicial Conduct — Requires judges to be embodiments of judicial competence. The Court cited this in finding that Judge Belen failed to keep abreast of the law and jurisprudence.

Romero, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concurred. Torres, Jr., J., was on leave.