A.M. No. 02-6-142-MCTC - Re: Request for the Transfer of Station of the 10th Municipal Circuit Trial Court Leyte from Merida to Isabel

Case Summary (A.M. No. 02-6-142-MCTC)

Request for Transfer and Prior Authorization

A Resolution dated July 31, 2002 granted the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Isabel, Leyte a request to transfer the official station of the 10th MCTC of Merida-Isabel from Merida to Isabel. The Court, however, conditioned the grant by directing Judge Bertulfo and the court personnel to explain, within ten (10) days from notice, why they had already transferred their office and began holding court sessions in Isabel prior to the grant of permission.

Conduct of Court Sessions in Isabel Despite Lack of Permission

In compliance, the court personnel admitted that they had been holding office in Isabel, Leyte, and they offered three explanations: first, that almost all court records were already in Isabel due to the poor condition of the courthouse in Merida; second, that Isabel had forty-six (46) criminal cases and fourteen (14) civil cases pending, while Merida had only eight (8) criminal cases and one (1) civil case; and third, that Isabel cases were heard in Isabel, while Merida cases were heard in Merida.

Referral to the Office of the Court Administrator and Initial Recommendations

On November 18, 2002, the Court referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report, and recommendation. In a Memorandum dated January 24, 2003, the OCA recommended: (a) that Acting Presiding Judge Delia N. Bertulfo be fined P3,000.00, and that the personnel of MCTC, Merida-Isabel, Leyte be reprimanded for failure to seek permission from the Court prior to holding office and court sessions in Isabel; and (b) that Judge Bertulfo be reprimanded for not complying with the directive to explain why she was holding court sessions in Isabel without prior permission, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

Order to Show Cause and Judge Bertulfo’s Compliance

On July 2, 2003, the Court required Judge Bertulfo to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against her for failing to explain, as directed in the July 31, 2002 Resolution, why she was holding office and court sessions in Isabel instead of Merida, even before authorization had been granted for the transfer. In her Compliance dated August 14, 2003, Judge Bertulfo asserted that she had already submitted a Letter-Explanation dated September 13, 2002 to Atty. Virginia Ancheta-Soriano, Clerk of Court, First Division of the Supreme Court, as directed by the July 31, 2002 Resolution. She reasoned that she had conducted court sessions in both Isabel and Merida and not Isabel only prior to the authorization. She further explained that she personally went to Isabel and Merida to conduct court sessions and preliminary investigations to avoid inconvenience to the litigants, stating that this was also the practice of her predecessor, the late Judge Bernardita Clemente.

Further Referral to the OCA and Reiteration of Recommendations

On September 22, 2003, the Court referred the case once more to the OCA for evaluation, report, and recommendation. In a Memorandum dated December 5, 2003, the OCA reiterated its earlier recommendations. The Court adopted the OCA’s assessment, stating that the recommendation was well-taken.

The Court’s Findings of Unauthorized and Unilateral Transfer

The Court held that the acts of Judge Bertulfo and the court personnel—transferring court sessions and case records from Merida to Isabel without prior authority from the Court—constituted a clear violation of Administrative Order No. 33 dated June 13, 1978, as reiterated under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. The Court emphasized that Merida, Leyte remained the official station of the 10th MCTC Merida-Isabel, Leyte, absent prior authority for the transfer.

The Court further underscored the administrative supervision mandate embodied in Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, stressing that judges and court personnel must remain mindful of Court circulars and orders to ensure the speedy, sound, and efficient dispensation of justice, the objective of administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel.

Disciplinary Disposition

For simple misconduct, the Court found Judge Delia N. Bertulfo guilty and imposed a fine of P3,000.00. The Court also imposed a reprimand on the court personnel of MCTC, Merida-Isabel, Leyte for failure to obtain the Court’s prior permission before holding office and c

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 02-6-142-MCTC)

The case involved an administrative matter on the request for the transfer of station of the 10th MCTC, Merida-Isabel, Leyte from Merida to Isabel, Leyte.
The Court later disciplined the Acting Presiding Judge Delia N. Bertulfo and the personnel of MCTC, Merida-Isabel, Leyte for holding office and court sessions in Isabel and for holding and transferring case records there without prior authority from the Court.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The respondent was Judge Delia N. Bertulfo, Acting Presiding Judge of 10th MCTC, Merida-Isabel, Leyte.
The other respondents were the personnel of MCTC, Merida-Isabel, Leyte.
The case began when the Court acted on a prior Resolution dated July 31, 2002 granting a request from the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Isabel, Leyte.
After the grant of permission, the Court issued a directive requiring respondents to explain why they had already started holding sessions in Isabel before permission was granted.
On November 18, 2002, the Court referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
After receiving OCA recommendations, the Court required Judge Bertulfo to show cause on July 2, 2003 for her failure to comply with the earlier directive.
On August 14, 2003, Judge Bertulfo submitted a Compliance with explanations.
On September 22, 2003, the Court again referred the case to the OCA for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
On December 5, 2003, the OCA reiterated its recommendation, and the Court adopted it in the final disposition.

Key Factual Allegations

The Court granted the transfer of the official station from Merida to Isabel in a Resolution dated July 31, 2002.
The Court conditioned its action by directing Judge Delia Bertulfo and the court personnel to explain within ten (10) days from notice why they had actually transferred their office and began holding court sessions in Isabel before the grant of permission.
The respondents admitted that they were holding office in Isabel, Leyte prior to the grant of permission.
The respondents justified their earlier actions by claiming: (a) almost all records were already kept in Isabel because the courthouse in Merida was in poor condition; (b) there were forty-six (46) criminal cases and fourteen (14) civil cases pending at Isabel, while only eight (8) criminal cases and one (1) civil case were pending at Merida; and (c) cases were heard in Isabel and Merida according to their respective locations.
Judge Bertulfo later argued that she had already submitted a Letter-Explanation dated September 13, 2002 to Atty. Virginia Ancheta-Soriano, Clerk of Court, First Division of the Supreme Court, as directed by the Court’s July 31, 2002 Resolution.
Judge Bertulfo explained that she held sessions in both Isabel and Merida before authorization and claimed her intention was to avoid inconvenience to litigants.
Judge Bertulfo also stated that conducting sessions and preliminary investigations at locations visited personally was the practice of her predecessor, the late Judge Bernardita Clemente.

Statutory and Institutional Framework

The Court treated the respondents’ conduct as a violation of Administrative Order No. 33 dated June 13, 1978.
The Court further noted that Administrative Order No. 33 was reiterated under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
The Court linked the violation to the rule that Merida, Leyte remained the official station of the