A.M. No. MTJ-00-1321 - Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Bellosillo

On March 2, 2000, a Victory Liner bus (Plate No. CWF-935) was involved in an accident along the National Highway of Dinalupihan, Bataan.
The accident resulted in the fatal injury of Marciana Bautista Morales, who died the following day.
Victory Liner, Inc. (VLI) assumed financial responsibility for the funeral and burial expenses of the deceased.

On March 6, 2000, VLI and the heirs of the victim entered into an Agreement/Undertaking regarding the incident.
On March 14, 2000, following VLI’s payment of the claims, Faustina M. Antonio (the designated representative of the heirs) executed a Release of Claim and an Affidavit of Desistance in favor of VLI and the driver, Reino de la Cruz.
Contrarily, on or before March 3, 2000, two of the deceased’s sons executed a Pinagsamang Salaysay against Reino de la Cruz, which later served as the basis for a criminal complaint filed for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (Criminal Case No. 10512).

After a preliminary examination on March 13, 2000, respondent Judge Reynaldo B. Bellosillo issued a warrant of arrest against Reino de la Cruz with bail fixed at P50,000 in cash.
He further ordered the immediate impoundment of the bus involved in the accident, stipulating that its release would only be allowed upon the posting of a cash bond of P50,000.
On March 30, 2000, VLI filed a Manifestation and Motion, depositing the cash bond under protest for the release of the bus. Following the deposit, the bus was released by the police based on the receipt furnished by VLI’s counsel.

On April 4, 2000, VLI filed a petition to declare void the order requiring a cash bond; however, the petition was dismissed for improper venue and lack of jurisdiction.
On the same day, Judge Bellosillo ordered the police to explain in writing why they should not face contempt and administrative charges for releasing the bus without a court order, resulting in the bus being re-impounded.
Later, on April 18, 2000, the judge acted on VLI’s previously filed manifestation and motion and issued an order for the bus’s release.

On June 23, 2000, VLI filed a verified complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Judge Bellosillo alleging:

Gross ignorance of the law for impounding the bus and requiring a cash bond.
Grave abuse of authority in revoking the surety bond of driver Edwin Serrano in Criminal Case No. 9373.
An unjust and oppressive order for increasing the bail to P350,000 and mandating cash posting.
Abuse of authority by allegedly compelling the police to file a case against Reino de la Cruz.
Dereliction of duty in failing to act on a pending motion.

A supplemental complaint was also verified and filed with the Office of the Chief Justice, later indorsed to the OCA.

Judge Bellosillo defended his actions based on the exercise of sound discretion, the prevailing practices of other judges, and the interests of justice and fair play.
He maintained that the imposition of a cash bond was necessary as a safeguard in cases where accused persons might be insolvent, and that the re-impounding of the bus was justified due to the alleged illegality of its prior release.
The judge further explained his decision to convert Edwin Serrano’s surety bond to a cash bond due to its minimal amount, expiration, and Serrano’s status as a fugitive.
It was also noted that the judge had been reprimanded and had pending administrative cases for various acts that allegedly exceeded the scope of his authority.

Whether the administrative complaint should be entertained given that the respondent judge had resigned and whether his resignation renders the case moot or merely academic.
Whether issues raised by VLI—specifically the order requiring a cash bond for the release of the bus—should have been raised in proper courts rather than through an administrative complaint.

Whether the ordering of a cash bond of P50,000 for the release of the impounded bus constitutes gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority.
Whether the judge’s order for re-impounding the bus after its initial release was justified.
Whether the conversion of Edwin Serrano’s surety bond to a cash bond, as well as the imposition of a P350,000 cash bail on him, was legally and procedurally sound.

Whether the amounts set for cash bail in Criminal Cases No. 10512 and 9373 were excessive and in violation of the constitutional guarantee to bail.
Whether the judge disregarded the factors provided under Section 9, Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure and the 2000 Bail Bond Guide, particularly with regard to the financial capability of the accused.