506 Phil. 604
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
"That on April 10, 2002, the arrest of accused Noe dela Fuente was effected by SPO2 Enrico Nonato, Warrant Server, PNP Guagua Police Station. Certification is hereto attached as Annex "D";In his comment on the complaint, respondent denied the charge or any irregularity in approving the 14 bailbonds of accused Noe dela Fuente. Respondent explained that the accused, accompanied by SPO2 Nonato Enrico, appeared before him in his court "at about the close of office hours" on April 10, 2002. They told him that there were no more judges in the courts of Guagua and that he was the only judge present in the courts of San Fernando City. The accused then presented his bail furnished by the Summit Guaranty & Insurance Co., Inc. After finding that the bail is in order, he (respondent) issued an Order approving the same.
That likewise on even date April 10, 2002, the accused filed his personal bail bonds, provided by Summit Guaranty & Insurance Company, Inc., which were approved by Judge Patrocinio R. Corpuz, RTC, Branch 44, City of San Fernando, Pampanga; on said date Judge Jesusa Mylene C. Suba-Isip reported for duty and very much available for the purpose of approving said question subject bail bond of the accused. Copies of the Order, the Certification and Court Calendar are hereto attached as Annexes "E," "F," "G," "H," & "I," respectively.x x x" (Underscoring ours)
In our Resolution dated April 7, 2003, we required the parties to manifest, within twenty (20) days from notice, whether they are submitting the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings/records submitted.
"1. The instant complaint against Judge Patrocinio Corpuz, RTC, Branch 44, San Fernando City, Pampanga be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; and2. Judge Corpuz be FOUND GUILTY of Grave Abuse of Authority for fixing and approving bail bonds in Criminal Case Nos. 18143 to 18170 despite the presence of the judge before whom the said cases are pending, in clear abuse of Section 17, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court and that he be FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely."[3]
"SEC.17. Bail, where filed. – (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is pending, or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any regional trial judge, metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city, or municipality, If the accused is arrested in a province, city, or municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may also be filed with any Regional Trial Court of said place, or if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge."In Cruz v. Yaneza,[4] we held:
"The foregoing provision anticipates two (2) situations. First, the accused is arrested in the same province, city, or municipality where his case is pending. Second, the accused is arrested in the province, city, or municipality other than where his case is pending. In the first situation, the accused may file bail in the court where his case is pending or, in the absence or unavailability of judge thereof, with another branch of the same court within the province or city. In the second situation, the accused has two (2) options. First, he may file bail in the court where his case is pending or second, he may file bail with any regional trial court in the province, city, or municipality where he was arrested. When no regional trial court judge is available, he may file bail with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge therein."In the instant case, accused Noe dela Fuente was arrested by virtue of the warrants of arrest[5] all dated April 9, 2002 issued by Judge Isip of the MTC of Guagua, Pampanga, Branch 2, where the cases were then pending. The accused was arrested in the same municipality. Following the above Rule and our ruling in Cruz, the application for bail should have been filed with the MTC of Guagua, Branch 2. Significantly, respondent does not dispute that Presiding Judge Isip was then present the whole day. If she was absent or unavailable, then the accused should have filed his application for bail with another branch of the same court within the Province of Pampanga or San Fernando City.
"The undersigned believes that the issue here is whether on the basis of the previous approval of bailbonds by Judge Patrocinio Corpuz, Section 17, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court was abused by the said judge.We find respondent's protestation of good faith and eagerness to uphold the constitutional right of an accused to bail bereft of merit. Records show that he likewise granted bail to all the accused in the following cases: (1) Criminal Case No. 00-33639, pending before the MTCC of Angeles City, Pampanga, Branch 1, on April 19, 2002; (2) Criminal Case No. 56084-89, MTCC of Pasig City, Branch 71, on April 23, 2002; (3) Criminal Case No. 12408, RTC of San Fernando City, Branch 42, on April 27, 2002; (4) Criminal Case No. 02-088-90, MCTC of Mabalacat-Magalang, Pampanga, on May 2, 2002; (5) Criminal Cases Nos. 6067-68, MTC of Floridablanca, Pampanga, on May 2, 2002; (6) Criminal Case No. 02-3108-9, RTC of Macabebe, Pampanga, on May 3, 2002; (7) Criminal Case No. 12439, RTC of San Fernando City, Branch 42, on May 10, 2002; (8) Criminal Case No, 12437, RTC of San Fernando City, Branch 48, on May 10, 2002; (9) Criminal Case No. 02-186, RTC of Angeles City, on May 10, 2002; (10) Criminal Case No. G-5823, RTC of Guagua, Pampanga, on May 13, 2002; and (11) Criminal Case No. 02-108, MCTC of Mabalacat-Magalang, Pampanga, on May 21, 2002. The bailbonds in these cases were furnished by the First Quezon City Insurance Co., Inc. and Summit Guaranty & Insurance Co., Inc.
After a careful evaluation of the record of this case, the undersigned is of the opinion that there are good grounds to believe that the aforementioned section of the Rules of Court was indeed abused by Judge Corpuz. Section 17, Rule 114 provides that:'SEC.17. Bail, where filed. – (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is pending, or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any regional trial judge, metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city, or municipality. x x x"Under the afore-cited section, it is very clear that Judge Corpuz can only act on applications for bailbond in the absence or unavailability of the judge of the court where the cases are pending. The latter is primarily responsible for approving/disapproving such applications for bail due to the pendency of the said cases in his/her court. Judge Corpuz can only act secondarily. Also, it must be shown that the judge of the Court where the cases are pending is indeed absent or unavailable before another judge can act on applications for bail lodged before him. The undersigned believes that Judge Corpuz failed in this aspect. He should have called first the presiding judge of MTC, Branch 2, Guagua, Pampanga (Judge Jesusa Mylene C. Suba-Isip) and inquired whether the latter is absent or unavailable before he acted on the application for bailbonds in Criminal Cases Nos. 18143 to 18170. As shown by the Report dated 30 April 2002 submitted by Executive Judge Isagani M. Palad, RTC, Guagua, Pampanga, bailbonds for Criminal Cases Nos. 18143 to 18170 (28 counts) entitled 'People of the Philippines vs. Noe dela Fuente' for Violation of B.P. 22, were indeed approved by Judge Corpuz despite the fact that Judge Jesusa Mylene C. Suba-Isip, the judge who issued the warrant of arrest, was very much available for the purpose of approving said bailbond." (Underscoring ours)
"SEC. 8. Serious charges. - Serious charges include:Respondent judge committed gross misconduct by blatantly disregarding the Rules and settled jurisprudence. Such offense has been defined as "the transgression of some established or definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence."[9] In Spouses Adriano and Hilda Monterola v. Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr.,[10] we ruled: "The observance of the law, which respondent judge ought to know, is required of every judge. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it; x x x failure to consider a basic and elementary rule, a law or principle in the discharge of his duties, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and the title he holds or is too viscious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority."x x x
- Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct;
x x x"
"SEC. 11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Patrocinio R. Corpuz, now retired, is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and is hereby FINED in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits.x x x
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00."