A.M. No. MTJ-03-1511 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE OCTAVIO A. FERNANDEZ, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, GENERAL M. NATIVIDAD-LLANERA.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in fairness and in justice to the said accused and considering that he is (sic) already deposited to this Court the required cashbond , it is hereby ordered the released (sic) from custody, unless he is detained for some other cause or causes. Let copy of this order be furnished the Presiding Judge of MTCC Palayan City. [5] Respondent judge violated the provisions of Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure by receiving the cash bond instead of directing the accused or any person acting in his behalf to deposit the cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue, provincial, city or municipal treasurer. In Agulan, Jr. v. Fernandez , [6] it was held: The rules specify the persons with whom a cash bail bond may be deposited namely: the collector of internal revenue, or the provincial, city or municipal treasurer. Section 14 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (effective December 1, 2000) provides: SEC. 14. Deposit of Cash as Bail The accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue or provincial, city or municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court, or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated or filed the case. Upon submission of a proper certificate of deposit and of a written undertaking showing compliance with the requirements of section 2 of this Rule, the accused shall be discharged from custody. The money deposited shall be considered as bail and applied to the payment of fine and costs while the excess, if any, shall be returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit. A judge is not one of those authorized to receive the deposit of cash as bail, nor should such cash be kept in the office of the judge. However, we take exception to the finding of OCA that respondent judge is guilty of gross misconduct in office. In Yap v. Inopiquez, Jr. , [7] this Court explained the concept of gross misconduct, thus: Misconduct is defined as any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right determination of the cause. It generally means wrongful, improper, unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. The term, however, does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent. On the other hand, the term gross connotes something out of all measure; beyond allowance; not to be excused; flagrant; shameful. For administrative liability to attach it must be established that the respondent was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other like motive. As defined Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of a sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill-will; it partakes of the nature of fraud. It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some motive of s