Re: Exposé Letter on Judge Ocampo III and Clerk of Court San Juan

A judge who systematically assigns cases to his own branch without conducting the raffle required by Circular No. 7, misappropriates confiscated bet money instead of ordering its forfeiture to the government, and countenances a subordinate's solicitation of gifts from litigants is guilty of gross misconduct warranting dismissal from the service.

Judge Julian C. Ocampo III presided over the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Naga City, while Renato C. San Juan served as Clerk of Court of the MTCC, Naga City. The MTCC of Naga City had three branches. Circular No. 7, dated September 23, 1974, governed the raffle of cases in stations with two or more branches, mandating that all cases be assigned by raffle conducted in open court. Presidential Decree No. 1602 governed the disposition of confiscated cash and articles in illegal gambling cases, requiring their forfeiture in favor of the government. Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, prohibited public officials from soliciting or accepting gifts in connection with operations regulated by their office.

An anonymous letter bearing the heading "Exposé" and signed by a "concerned media man" was sent to the Office of the President and the Chief Justice, alleging various anomalies committed by Judge Julian C. Ocampo III of the MTCC, Branch 1, Naga City, and Renato C. San Juan, Clerk of Court of the MTCC, Naga City. Both offices referred the letter to the Office of the Court Administrator, which in turn referred it to Executive Judge Jose T. Atienza of the RTC of Naga City for investigation, report, and recommendation.

The letter enumerated nine categories of alleged misconduct. It charged that justice was for sale at MTCC Branch 1, with the judge allowing the clerk of court to dispense justice for a price. It alleged nepotism in hiring, claiming the clerk of court hired only relatives and godchildren, converting the branch into a "family corporation"—specifically naming Asuncion Bolocan (legal researcher and acting branch clerk of court, married to a stenographer of the same court), Melbeth Cabanos (stenographer married to a process server of the same court), Malba Sipoy (stenographer and godchild by marriage of both respondents), Ronnie Severo (staff assistant and relative of former Presiding Judge Joseph Abante), and Maria Victoria Rili (court interpreter and relative of Judge Abante). The letter further alleged that respondents rigged the raffle of jueteng cases so that all such cases were assigned to Branch 1 without being raffled among the three MTCC branches, enabling them to misappropriate confiscated bet money. It listed ten criminal cases from August to December 1997 in which bet money was allegedly misappropriated for personal uses including snacks, loans, a dance instructor, liquor, and Christmas decor. Additional charges included systematic extortion for every transaction in the court—P400.00 for solemnizing marriages, P300.00 for approving motions, and P30.00 to P100.00 for affidavits of loss; solicitation of an airconditioner by the clerk of court from Robertson Department Store, which had pending cases; the clerk of court supplying the judge with Fundador brandy to preserve his influence; a birthday party in the courtroom attended by lawyers and parties with pending cases; the clerk of court having the judge sign papers during drinking sessions to approve fake bonds; and a lawyer-bonding company owner donating a coffeemaker to the branch.

Respondent judge, in his comment dated April 5, 1999, attributed the letter to a disgruntled female employee whom he had not recommended for appointment as branch clerk of court, having instead recommended Asuncion Bolocan. He denied that justice was for sale, defended his hiring recommendations as based on qualifications, and explained that jueteng cases were assigned without raffle to accommodate accused persons requesting immediate arraignment. He admitted that P9,000.00 in coins was turned over to his court in Criminal Case No. 78538, claimed it was not immediately counted because doing so was time-consuming, and admitted giving P2,000.00 to a police officer as a "Christmas present" and spending another P2,000.00 for office supplies. He denied the birthday party lasted until morning, denied Ruben Sia was present, and claimed Atty. Marvel Clavecilla attended because they had a tradition of celebrating birthdays together. Respondent clerk of court, in his comment dated April 12, 1999, denied selecting personnel, admitted requesting an airconditioner from Robertson Department Store, admitted the practice of not raffling detention cases, and denied having custody of confiscated bet money.

The investigating judge, in his report dated April 19, 1999, found no evidence substantiating the charge that justice was for sale. He found respondent judge to have violated Circular No. 7 by failing to raffle jueteng cases, to have been negligent in the care of confiscated bet money, and found respondent clerk of court to have solicited an airconditioner in violation of R.A. No. 6713, Sec. 7(d). He recommended a reprimand for the judge and a three-month suspension without pay for the clerk of court. The OCA recommended increased penalties of six months and one year, respectively.

• Identity of Complainant and Motive: Respondent judge claimed the anonymous letter was written by a disgruntled female employee whom he had not recommended for appointment as branch clerk of court, and that the charges were motivated by resentment over the appointment of Asuncion Bolocan instead.
• Nepotism: Respondent judge maintained that he recommended only qualified individuals and that it was merely coincidental that his recommendees were the same persons recommended by respondent clerk of court; he argued that Bolocan's appointment was cleared by the Civil Service Commission and approved by the Supreme Court. Respondent clerk of court denied selecting and recommending personnel, claiming all employees were recommended by either respondent judge or his predecessor, and that his only relatives in the branch were the Cabanos spouses.
• Raffle of Cases: Respondent judge justified the assignment of jueteng cases without raffle on the ground that first-time offenders could be immediately arraigned and sentenced to pay a fine, accommodating the accused's request for immediate arraignment so they would not have to post bail. Respondent clerk of court argued that not raffling detention cases was already the established practice in the MTCC of Naga City before he assumed his position.
• Confiscated Bet Money: Respondent judge denied that bet money was turned over to his court and spent for employees' benefit, claiming only P9,000.00 in coins was received in Criminal Case No. 78538, that counting was delayed because it was time-consuming, and that P2,000.00 was given to a police officer as a Christmas present and P2,000.00 spent for office supplies. Respondent clerk of court denied having custody of confiscated bet money.
• Solicitation of Airconditioner: Respondent clerk of court argued that he requested the airconditioner only because he learned Robertson Department Store had already given one to the MTCC, and that the unit received was slightly used. Respondent judge saw nothing wrong with the solicitation, noting that the branch of the suspected letter-writer had also received a unit.
• Other Charges: Respondent judge denied being a habitual heavy drinker, denied approving fake bonds during drinking sessions, denied that his birthday party lasted until morning, denied Ruben Sia's attendance, and claimed Atty. Clavecilla's presence was due to a shared birthday tradition. He denied awareness that Atty. Fandiño managed a bonding company. He also denied that excessive fees were charged for solemnizing marriages, claiming only P50.00 and P18.00 for documentary stamps were collected.

• Raffle of Cases: Whether respondent judge violated Circular No. 7 by assigning jueteng cases to his own branch without conducting a raffle.
• Disposition of Confiscated Bet Money: Whether respondent judge and respondent clerk of court were liable for the improper disposition and misappropriation of confiscated bet money in gambling cases.
• Solicitation of Gifts: Whether respondent clerk of court committed misconduct by soliciting an airconditioner from a party with pending cases before the MTCC.
• Unsubstantiated Charges: Whether the charges of selling justice, nepotism in hiring, lenient treatment of accused in jueteng cases, habitual drinking, approval of fake bonds, excessive fees, and acceptance of a coffeemaker were substantiated.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether the penalties recommended by the investigating judge and the OCA were sufficient given the sustained charges.

• Raffle of Cases: Yes. Respondent judge violated Circular No. 7 by dispensing with the raffle of jueteng cases, as the circular provides mechanisms for urgent matters through special raffle and does not permit procedural shortcuts.
• Disposition of Confiscated Bet Money: Yes. Respondent judge was guilty of serious misconduct for misappropriating confiscated bet money—giving P2,000.00 to a police officer and spending P2,000.00 on office supplies—instead of ordering its forfeiture to the government pursuant to P.D. No. 1602. Respondent clerk of court was negligent in signing a receipt for the money without counting it.
• Solicitation of Gifts: Yes. Respondent clerk of court committed improper conduct violative of R.A. No. 6713, Sec. 7(d), by soliciting an airconditioner from a party with pending cases before the court.
• Unsubstantiated Charges: No. The charges of selling justice, nepotism, lenient treatment of accused, habitual drinking, approval of fake bonds, excessive fees, and acceptance of a coffeemaker were not substantiated by evidence.
• Appropriate Penalty: No. The penalties recommended by the investigating judge and the OCA were insufficient; both respondents were dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all accrued retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment.

• Raffle of Cases: Circular No. 7 explicitly mandates that no case may be assigned to any branch without being raffled and provides a mechanism for urgent or interlocutory matters through a special raffle upon written request to the Executive Judge. Respondent judge's justification—that dispensing with the raffle accommodated accused persons seeking immediate arraignment—was unconvincing, as the circular already provides for such situations. By not raffling jueteng cases, respondent judge opened himself to the suspicion that he acted not out of urgency but to save the accused from going to jail. The raffle safeguards the right of parties to be heard by an impartial tribunal and protects judges from suspicion of impropriety; its disregard cannot be taken lightly. Respondent clerk of court's defense that non-raffling was established practice was rejected, as a wrong cannot be made right by longstanding practice, and as Clerk of Court he should have adhered strictly to the law on raffle of cases.

• Disposition of Confiscated Bet Money: P.D. No. 1602, Sec. 2 provides that cash money in illegal gambling cases shall be confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government. The investigating judge found that, with the exception of Criminal Case No. 78745, respondent judge failed to order the payment of confiscated money to the government in the criminal cases mentioned. Respondent judge could not be excused on the ground that the bet money was not always turned over to his court by the City Prosecutor, as it was his duty to ensure the money was turned over and then ordered paid to the government. In Criminal Case No. 78538, a receipt dated August 12, 1997 showed the amount to be P20,249.75, yet both respondents claimed only P9,000.00 was received—a claim rendered doubtful by their admission that the money was not immediately counted. Signing a receipt without counting the money constituted negligence on the part of respondent clerk of court. Respondent judge admitted giving P2,000.00 to a police officer and spending P2,000.00 on office supplies, amounting to misappropriation of funds constituting serious misconduct.

• Solicitation of Gifts: Respondent clerk of court admitted soliciting an airconditioner from Robertson Department Store, whose owner had pending cases before the MTCC. This violated R.A. No. 6713, Sec. 7(d), which prohibits public officials from soliciting or accepting any gift, gratuity, favor, or anything of monetary value from any person in connection with operations regulated by their office. That the unit was slightly used and that a similar donation had been previously made did not justify the request. Court employees should avoid any action that may reasonably give rise to suspicion that their relations with others influence the decision of cases.

• Unsubstantiated Charges: No evidence was adduced to substantiate the charge that justice was for sale; even exhaustive interviews with court personnel and frequent visitors yielded no confirmation that the clerk of court directly asked money from litigants in exchange for favorable decisions. On nepotism, respondent judge's power to recommend appointments was merely recommendatory, and no recommended individual was shown to lack qualifications; the appointment of Asuncion Bolocan did not fall within the prohibition of E.O. No. 292, Sec. 59, as she was not a relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity of the appointing authority, recommending authority, chief of the bureau or office, or person exercising immediate supervision. On lenient treatment, the investigating judge found that fines imposed ranged from P1,000.00 to P1,500.00, not P210.00 as alleged, and in one case the accused were sentenced to imprisonment. The charges of habitual drinking, approval of fake bonds, excessive fees, and acceptance of a coffeemaker were likewise unsupported by evidence.

• Appropriate Penalty: Respondent judge's condonation of the clerk of court's solicitation—stating that the suspected letter-writer's branch had also received a unit—reflected moral obtuseness rendering him unfit for judicial office. By their conduct, both respondents demonstrated culpability subversive of the principle that a public office is a public trust, warranting penalties heavier than those recommended by the investigating judge and the OCA.

• Mandatory Raffle of Cases — Circular No. 7 requires that all cases filed in stations with two or more branches be assigned by raffle; no case may be assigned to any branch without being raffled. The raffle safeguards the right of parties to be heard by an impartial and unbiased tribunal and protects judges from suspicion of impropriety. For urgent or interlocutory matters, the circular provides a mechanism for special raffle upon written request to the Executive Judge. Disregard of this requirement cannot be taken lightly, as it opens the judge to suspicion of impropriety in case assignment.

• Nepotism under E.O. No. 292, Sec. 59 — Nepotism exists when an appointment is issued in favor of a relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity of the appointing authority, recommending authority, chief of the bureau or office, or person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee. An appointment does not violate the prohibition where the appointee is not related within the prohibited degree to any of these four categories, even if the appointee's spouse works in the same branch.

• Disposition of Confiscated Bet Money — Under P.D. No. 1602, Sec. 2, cash money in illegal gambling cases shall be confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government. A judge has the duty to ensure that confiscated money is turned over to the court and to order its payment to the government. Failure to do so, coupled with distribution of the money for personal or office purposes, constitutes misappropriation of funds and serious misconduct.

• Prohibition on Solicitation of Gifts — Under R.A. No. 6713, Sec. 7(d), public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary value from any person in connection with operations regulated by their office. Court employees must avoid any action that may reasonably give rise to suspicion that their relations with others influence the decision of cases.

• Wrong Practice Does Not Make Right — A longstanding practice of non-compliance with mandatory procedural rules does not excuse continued violation. A clerk of court is expected to adhere strictly to the requirements of the law on raffle of cases regardless of prior practice.

• "No matter how urgent a case may be, this fact cannot justify the procedural shortcuts employed by respondent judge of dispensing with the raffle of the same in violation of Circular No. 7 when there are provisions for such situations." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi for the raffle violation, rejecting the defense of urgency as justification for bypassing mandatory procedural safeguards.

• "By not raffling cases involving jueteng, respondent judge opens himself to the suspicion that he acted not so much out of urgency but to save the accused in those cases from going to jail." — The Court explains why dispensing with the raffle is inherently suspect, linking the procedural violation to potential partiality toward accused persons.

• "This is a reflection of moral obtuseness which renders respondent unfit for the judicial office." — The Court characterizes respondent judge's condonation of the clerk of court's solicitation of a gift from a litigant as demonstrating unfitness for judicial office, elevating the solicitation from a subordinate's lapse to a basis for the judge's own dismissal.

• "By their conduct, both have demonstrated culpability subversive of the time-honored principle that a public office is a public trust." — This passage frames the overarching rationale for the penalty of dismissal, tying the individual violations to the constitutional principle of public trust.

• Medina vs. De Guia, 219 SCRA 153 (1993) — Cited for the proposition that disregard of Circular No. 7 on raffle of cases cannot be taken lightly, and that clerks of court should adhere strictly to the requirements of the law on raffle of cases.
• Ang Kek Chen vs. Bello, 163 SCRA 358 (1988) — Cited alongside Medina vs. De Guia in support of the importance of the raffle requirement.
• Judge Daniel Liangco, Adm. Matter No. 99-11-158-MTC, Aug. 1, 2000 — A factually analogous case involving an MTC Executive Judge who did not raffle jueteng cases and instead assigned them to his own branch, where the Court found the judge guilty of a clear breach of duty.
• Ferriols vs. Hiam, 225 SCRA 205 (1993) — Cited in support of the finding that respondent judge's distribution of confiscated bet money constituted misappropriation of funds and serious misconduct.
• Garciano vs. Oyao, 102 SCRA 195 (1981) — Cited for the principle that court employees should be careful to avoid any action which may reasonably give rise to suspicion that their relations with others influence the decision of cases.
• Francisco vs. Springael, 139 SCRA 107 (1985) — Cited in support of the principle that a public office is a public trust, underpinning the imposition of dismissal.

• Circular No. 7, dated September 23, 1974 (Raffling of Cases) — Mandates that all cases in stations with two or more branches be assigned by raffle, with no case assigned without being raffled. Provides for special raffle in cases of urgent or interlocutory matters upon written request to the Executive Judge. Applied to find respondent judge guilty of violating the raffle requirement by assigning jueteng cases to his own branch without raffle.
• P.D. No. 1602, Sec. 2 — Provides that cash money or articles of value in illegal gambling cases shall be confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government. Applied to find respondent judge liable for failing to order the forfeiture of confiscated bet money and for misappropriating portions thereof.
• R.A. No. 6713, Sec. 7(d) — Prohibits public officials and employees from soliciting or accepting gifts, gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value in connection with operations regulated by their office. Applied to find respondent clerk of court liable for soliciting an airconditioner from a party with pending cases.
• E.O. No. 292, Sec. 59 (Nepotism) — Prohibits appointments in favor of relatives within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity of the appointing authority, recommending authority, chief of the bureau or office, or person exercising immediate supervision. Applied to determine that the appointment of Asuncion Bolocan did not constitute nepotism.
• Manual for Clerks of Court, Chapter XII, Section B(3) — Provides that after a case has been terminated, money should be turned over to the National Treasury. Cited in connection with the clerk of court's duty regarding confiscated bet money.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concurred. No separate concurring opinions were noted.