Facts:

The case of Jesus C. Banawa vs. Hon. Fernando Bartolome involves an administrative complaint filed by Jesus C. Banawa against Judge Fernando Bartolome, who presides over the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch V. The complaint was lodged on April 27, 1972. The core issue of the dispute arose from the Judge's alleged failure to recognize Banawa's appointment as Acting Deputy Clerk of Court by the Secretary of Justice, Vicente Abad Santos. Banawa contended that he was entitled to this designation due to his extensive service in the judiciary, totaling twenty-eight years, with twenty-six of those years spent in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. He asserted that under the Constitution, he had rights as a civil service employee which the Judge had violated by not accepting the Secretary's appointment.

In his defense, Judge Bartolome denied the allegations, explaining that the Secretary's letter was not an order directing him to accept Banawa as his Depu

...

Facts:

Background of the Complaint

• Complainant Jesus C. Banawa filed an administrative complaint against Judge Fernando Bartolome of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch V.
• The complaint was based on allegations of ignorance of the law and grave abuse of power.
• Banawa asserted that his designation as Acting Deputy Clerk of Court for Branch V—issued by Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos—was not honored by the respondent.

Designation and Appointment Issues

• The Secretary of Justice's letter dated November 22, 1971 notified Banawa of his designation as Acting Deputy Clerk of Court for Branch V.
• The letter, however, was addressed solely to Banawa and not to Judge Bartolome, thereby causing ambiguity regarding to whom the order was actually directed.
• The Department of Justice policy, as evidenced by Memorandum Order dated December 17, 1968, required the recommendation or prior approval of the presiding judge for any appointment made in the court.

Respondent Judge’s Explanation and Rationale

• Judge Bartolome explained that the letter from the Secretary of Justice was informational and did not serve as a direct order for him to accept Banawa as his deputy clerk.
• He emphasized that even if the Secretary of Justice possesses the power to appoint court employees, such appointments, especially in sensitive positions, must be supported by the trust and confidence of the presiding judge.
• The judge argued that his refusal was based on concerns regarding Banawa’s qualifications and integrity, noting that:
• Despite Banawa's long service (28 years, with 26 years in the court system), his performance and character were questionable.
• Not a single member of the local Bar or prominent colleagues could recommend or vouch for Banawa’s reliability.
• His current superior, Judge Malcolm Sarmiento, had already prohibited him from handling the records of pending civil cases.
• Judge Bartolome maintained that if forced to employ an individual in a sensitive role without the necessary trust, he would also step aside, underscoring the importance of judicial discretion in personnel matters.

Involvement of the Secretary of Justice

• The Court sought the views of the Secretary of Justice, who clarified that:
• His initial inclination was to appoint Banawa based on his years of service and prior connections with the court.
• A verbal representation had been made by Banawa suggesting the judge’s amenability to the designation.
• Upon learning of Judge Bartolome’s strong objection, the Secretary revoked the designation on November 24, 1971, canceling the appointment in favor of another candidate, Porfirio Pineda.
• The Secretary further indicated that the administrative complaint was unfounded, as the procedural requirements and the conditions for appointment were not met.

Constitutional and Administrative Considerations

• Both parties invoked constitutional mandates and the principle of separation of powers.
• Judge Bartolome underscored that even if the department head possessed the power to appoint, the delegation must conform to judicial supervision and the inherent independence of the judiciary.
• The overall dispute highlighted the tension between departmental directives and the discretionary power of judges regarding the selection of their aides.

Issue:

• Whether Judge Bartolome committed a grave abuse of power or acted within his supervisory discretion by refusing to accept Banawa as Acting Deputy Clerk of Court.
• Whether the Secretary of Justice’s designation without the explicit involvement or approval of the presiding judge oversteps the constitutional boundaries defined by the principle of separation of powers.
• Whether seniority alone should be a determinative factor in employing or appointing personnel to sensitive positions within the judiciary, or if personal qualification and the confidence of the judge should prevail.
• Whether the procedural requirements, including the requisite recommendation of the presiding judge, were properly observed in Banawa’s appointment as Acting Deputy Clerk of Court.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)