A.M. No. MTJ-95-1065 - Tuliao vs. Ramos

On March 3, 1995, a criminal complaint for homicide was filed by the Philippine National Police against Gallego Adona (alias Apogia) for the killing of Randy Ramos Tuliao, the son of complainant Josephine R.A. Tuliao.
The complaint was docketed as Criminal Case No. 4293.

On March 8, 1995, respondent Judge Jose O. Ramos of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Echague, Isabela, conducted a preliminary investigation into the homicide complaint.
By his order dated March 16, 1995, the judge directed the accused to submit a counter-affidavit, which was later filed on March 24, 1995.

On April 3, 1995, after finding probable cause, the judge issued a warrant of arrest against the accused.
On the same day, he approved the accused’s personal bail bond in the amount of ₱20,000.00, which had been posted on March 23, 1995, by the Commonwealth Insurance Company.
The bond was purportedly signed by its Senior Vice President, Rolando B. Francisco.

On April 8, 1995, the parents of the deceased Randy Tuliao informed the judge that the bail bond was falsified.
They presented a letter from Maximo Parlan, Operations Manager of Commonwealth, stating that the bond was spurious because Commonwealth had ceased issuing bail bonds since February 24, 1992.
In response, the judge ordered the cancellation of the bond, directed the immediate arrest of the accused, and instructed the NBI of Cabanatuan City to investigate those responsible for filing the fraudulent bond.

On July 11, 1995, complainant Josephine R.A. Tuliao filed an administrative complaint against Judge Jose O. Ramos.
The charges included:

Negligence in approving a fraudulent bail bond.
Failure to terminate the preliminary investigation within the period prescribed under Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
Failure to transmit the case records to the Provincial Prosecutor as required under Section 5 of Rule 112.

An affidavit dated August 13, 1992, by the former Senior Vice President Rolando B. Francisco, stating he could not have signed the March 23, 1995, bail bond and that the purported signature was a forgery.
Several documentary evidences:

A Certificate of Authority from the Insurance Commission (dated July 1, 1993) indicating that Commonwealth’s authority to issue bail bonds was withdrawn effective July 1, 1992.
An affidavit of publication by Lourdes Diaz confirming that a notice had been published on June 15, 1992, that Commonwealth had ceased underwriting and issuing bail bonds since December 11, 1991.
A certification from Celso M. Gabalones, Chief of the Documentation Unit of the Supreme Court, verifying that Commonwealth’s authority was valid only until February 24, 1992.

The judge claimed that the bail bond appeared on its face to be in order, supported by a Supreme Court certification (dated March 2, 1995), a Certificate of Authority, and a certification from the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Tarlac.
He argued that his approval of the bond was an “honest mistake” due to its apparent completeness.
To ensure Commonwealth was not blacklisted, he had required further certification from the accused’s brother, which he eventually received before approving the bond.
For the pending preliminary investigation, the judge set a clarificatory hearing for April 7, 1995, to resolve unresolved matters. However, the accused went into hiding, resulting in the investigation remaining unresolved.

The records referred to a similar administrative case involving the same judge, where previous misconduct involving delays and document falsification was noted.
Acting Executive Judge Henedino P. Eduarte’s report (dated December 18, 1996) substantiated the charges against Judge Ramos, recommending his dismissal.
Although the judge had already retired by May 25, 1997, the administrative complaint was pursued, resulting in an administrative liability finding.

Whether Judge Jose O. Ramos was negligent in approving a bail bond that was materially deficient and failed to comply with the required formalities as set forth in the Manual for Clerks of Court.
Whether the judge’s acceptance of merely photocopied supporting documents, instead of requiring originals, amounts to a breach of duty.

Whether Judge Ramos violated Sections 3 and 5 of Rule 112 by failing to conclude the preliminary investigation and transmitting the case record to the Provincial Prosecutor within the prescribed period.
Whether the delay in resolving the investigation, particularly after receiving the accused’s counter-affidavit, constitutes gross negligence regardless of the accused’s subsequent disappearance.

Whether the judge’s explanation—that his approval of the bond was an “honest mistake” due to its apparent completeness—can be accepted as a valid defense against the charges of negligence and dereliction of duty.
Whether the reliance on improper or insufficient documentary evidence excuses the failure to strictly comply with procedural requirements.

Whether forfeiture of retirement benefits is warranted in this instance, or if an alternative penalty, such as a fine, would be more just and proper.
The appropriateness of imposing a fine of ₱20,000.00 deducted from any retirement benefits due, given the judge’s administrative lapses.