Title
Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental
Case
A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC
Decision Date
Dec 5, 2017
Judge Macabaya found guilty of gross misconduct, ignorance of law, and allowing wife's interference in court operations; fined with stern warning due to mitigating circumstances.

Case Summary (A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC)

Findings of the Audit

The audit revealed several deficiencies: 69 cases pending decision beyond the mandated 90-day period, 33 cases with unresolved incidents, and 155 cases that had become dormant. Specifically notable were irregularities in key criminal cases, including erroneous orders that contravened the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Report Inaccuracies

Inaccuracies in a report submitted by the RTC were highlighted, including the exclusion of cases already decided and others pending action. These omissions were regarded as violations of the guidelines stipulated in Administrative Circular No. 61-2001. Furthermore, the audit team found that the docket records were inadequately maintained, and there were failures to create essential judgment and execution books.

Impropriety of Personal Involvement

The audit noted the inappropriate involvement of Judge Macabaya's wife in court operations, an action he defended as assistance but which created a perception of interference in judicial functions.

Response to Audit Observations

Subsequently, Atty. Taumaturgo U. Macabinlar, Clerk of Court V, submitted an action plan aimed at addressing the audit findings. However, the proposed plan lacked specificity and measurable outcomes, prompting the audit team to recommend revisions to ensure effectiveness and accountability.

Continued Non-Compliance

Despite being reminded multiple times of the need for compliance with the audit team's directives, Judge Macabaya exhibited a pattern of non-compliance that involved submitting incomplete documents months beyond the deadlines and failing to take adequate actions on unresolved cases, which collectively amounted to administrative inefficiency.

Court’s Intervention

Ultimately, on December 1, 2014, the Court directed Judge Macabaya to show cause for potential disciplinary action concerning his repeated failures. In addition, he was temporarily relieved of some judicial duties, and his salaries were withheld pending compliance with court orders.

Motion for Reconsideration

In early 2015, Judge Macabaya filed motions arguing that the penalties were unjust and that his due process rights were violated. He claimed the delays were partly due to an influx of new cases and a lack of records following a fire at the Hall of Justice.

Findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)

The OCA concluded that Judge Macabaya had been guilty of gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law, recommending his dismissal and forfeiture of retirement benefits. This recommendation cited a lack of adequate responses to the audit findings and ongoing inefficiencies.

Ruling of the Cour

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.