A.M. NO. MTJ-03-1501 - JAIME LIM CO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE RUBEN R. PLATA, MTCC, BRANCH 1, SANTIAGO CITY.

Ruling

accordingly returned the papers to his staff for further processing and promulgation, as it is the usual job of the clerical staff. Judge Plata was not aware that one of the papers that he had signed was one of the applications for bail of Milagros Villaceran until he received a copy of the complaint of Mr. Jaime Lim Co. Judge Plata was likewise not aware that his staff failed to completely fill up all the necessary data in the forms in accordance with his instructions prior to filing them. Judge Plata had to contend with the volume of work as presiding/executive judge of MTCC Br. 1 and Br. 2 of Santiago City and that of the MTC Cordon, Isabela. [13] This Court upholds the findings of both the investigating Judge and the OCA that the above-stated facts demonstrated the negligence of the respondent Judge rather than his gross partiality. As stated in the OCA Memorandum, dated 12 October 2004: We find that respondent Judge was remiss in scrutinizing the documents which he signed. We agree with the investigating Judges observation that respondent was negligent in this aspect. That his signature above the printed name of the accused was made inadvertently is credible as it would be the height of folly if he deliberately signed the bail for and in behalf of the accused. [14] Given that the documents herein had been prepared by his staff, respondent Judge had the responsibility of reviewing the said documents when submitted to him, before affixing his signature thereon. Respondent Judges signature carried a lot of weight and could turn an ordinary piece of paper into an official act of the court, thus, he should have checked, and if necessary, double-checked, whether the forms were properly filled-out and the information therein were correct, in order to avoid similar controversies in the future. Respondent Judge defended his decision to reduce the bail bond from P100,000 to P50,000 for each of the accused Villacerans as a legitimate exercise of his judicial discretion. According to respondent Judge, Section 9, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, allowed the reduction of the amount of bail upon certain overriding considerations, i.e. , (a) financial ability of the accused to give bail; (b) nature and circumstance of the offense; (c) penalty of the offense charged; and (d) character and reputation of the accused. Respondent Judge also invoked paragraph 2(o) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 89, dated 29 August 2000, otherwise known as The 2000 Bail Bond Guide, which stated that: For violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, bail shall be P2,000.00 for the first P40,000.00 face value of the check and an additional P1,000.00 for every P10,000.00 in excess of P40,000.00, but bail shall not exceed P30,000.00. The two checks involved in Criminal Cases No. 1-4210 and No. 1-4211, allegedly issued by the accused Villacerans, each had a face value of P1,000,000. Respondent Judge argued that the reduced amount of bail bond, amounting to P50,000 for each of