A.M. No. 97-2-12-MTC - IN RE: De Guzman, Jr.

Media reports indicated that ex-Congressman Nicanor de Guzman, Jr.—a life termer presently detained in the National Bilibid Prison (NBP)—celebrated his birthday in his hometown in Nueva Ecija during January 16–18, 1997.
An order dated November 27, 1996, by Acting Presiding Judge Geminiano A. Eduardo of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija, directed the issuance of a subpoena requiring de Guzman to appear for a hearing related to LRC File No. 9-96 (a petition for the issuance of a duplicate copy of TCT No. NT-185476).

Immediately after signing the order on November 27, 1996, Clerk of Court II Juana F. Edades issued a subpoena on December 5, 1996, complete with a First Indorsement, and forwarded it to the National Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa City.
On January 6, 1997, Penal Superintendent Juanito S. Leopando of the Bureau of Prisons sent a letter (received January 10, 1997) to the Clerk of Court of the MTC, informing that de Guzman was a life termer and that under Administrative Circular No. 6 (dated December 5, 1977), Supreme Court permission was required before a life detainee could be brought out of the NBP.

Administrative Circular No. 6, issued on December 5, 1977, expressly prohibits the removal of any prisoner sentenced to death or life imprisonment from the NBP for appearances in court unless authorized by the Supreme Court.
The Circular further directs that any court requiring the appearance or attendance of such prisoners conduct the proceedings within the confines of the penal institution, emphasizing caution to prevent escape.

Judge Eduardo admitted that upon issuance of the subpoena, neither he nor his Clerk was aware that the individual subpoenaed, Nicanor de Guzman, Jr., was the same person serving a life sentence at the NBP.
The Judge acknowledged that had he been aware of the status and possessed a copy of the relevant circular, he would have instructed his clerk not to issue the subpoena.
The Clerk of Court similarly explained that she was unaware of the Circular, citing that it was not available in the usual place of safekeeping, and that a similar subpoena had been issued by the Prosecutor’s Office in another case.
It was also noted that subsequent to the issuance of their subpoena, de Guzman did not appear in court on January 16, 1997, and another government agency later issued a separate subpoena for the same individual.

The Court Administrator, through a directive dated January 21, 1997, questioned both Judge Eduardo and Clerk Edades regarding why no disciplinary action had been initiated considering their deviation from the prescribed Administrative Circular.
Judge Eduardo’s explanation cited his heavy workload, multiple judicial assignments, and the unavailability of the circular in his office as reasons for his oversight.
Both respondents’ admissions reveal a lack of due diligence in verifying the status of the individual to be subpoenaed and failing to act upon the information received from the NBP Superintendent.

Whether the issuance of a subpoena requiring the appearance of Nicanor de Guzman, Jr.—a life termer detained at the NBP—without securing prior approval from the Supreme Court violates the provisions set forth in Administrative Circular No. 6.
Whether the respondents (Judge Eduardo and Clerk Edades) can validly excuse their oversight by claiming ignorance of the Circular, given their long service and duty to remain updated on significant judicial rules and procedures.
Whether the actions (or inactions) of the respondents constitute gross negligence in the performance of their judicial and administrative duties.
What appropriate sanctions and measures should be imposed on the respondents to ensure compliance with internal rules and to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.