G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-21-2604 (Formerly A.M. No. 21-01-03-SC), August 22, 2023
Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Hon. Jesus B. Mupas, Former Presiding Judge, Atty. Melben Rey M. Madrid, Branch Clerk of Court, Liza I. Doctolero, Court Stenographer, and Hermito Dela Cruz III, Criminal Clerk-in-Charge, All of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 112, Respondents.

FACTS

On October 27, 2020, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received information from a radio report about an unidentified court being investigated for the loss of evidence consisting of approximately ₱800,000.00. The Executive Judge of the RTC Pasay identified the court as Branch 112. It was ascertained that on October 26, 2020, cash evidence amounting to ₱841,691.00 in Criminal Case Nos. 19-04232-CR and 19-04233-CR pending before then Presiding Judge Jesus B. Mupas was lost.
The incident reports revealed that on October 12, 2020, during a hearing, Police Officer Genomar Geraldino turned over the cash to the court, and it was received by respondent Hermito Dela Cruz III, the Criminal Clerk-in-Charge. Dela Cruz placed the cash in a sealed box and, after the hearing, stored it inside the locked cabinet of respondent Liza I. Doctolero, a Court Stenographer, where she kept her transcripts. On October 26, 2020, Doctolero and others found the cabinet lock destroyed and the money missing.
Judge Mupas claimed he directed Dela Cruz in open court and later in his chambers to secure the evidence in the vault, the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), or a bank. Dela Cruz allegedly raised objections (full vault, closed OCC, bank deposit affecting serial numbers) and assured the judge he would secure it, later revealing he placed it in Doctolero’s cabinet only after the theft. Atty. Melben Rey M. Madrid, the Branch Clerk of Court, stated he was working from home during the October 12 hearing and was only informed of the incident on October 26. Dela Cruz defended his actions by claiming Judge Mupas was distracted and did not object to his plan to use the cabinet. Doctolero denied participation, stating she initially refused but relented after Dela Cruz claimed he had obtained Judge Mupas’s permission.
Previously, on November 10, 2020, the Court had already dismissed Judge Mupas from service in an unrelated administrative case (Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Hon. Mupas).

ISSUE

Whether the respondents are administratively liable for the loss of the cash evidence.

RULING

The Court found the respondents administratively liable, modifying the recommendations of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB).
1. Former Judge Jesus B. Mupas: Found liable for Gross Neglect of Duty. As the presiding judge, he exercised control and supervision over his court and personnel. His failure to ensure his clear and repeated directives for the proper safekeeping of the evidence were followed, and his lack of follow-up or verification for 14 days, constituted gross negligence. Considering his previous dismissal from service in another case, the Court imposed an additional fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (₱40,000.00) to be deducted from any accrued leave credits or benefits.
2. Atty. Melben Rey M. Madrid: Found liable for Simple Neglect of Duty. As Branch Clerk of Court, he is an officer of the court and a manager of its operations. His failure to establish an effective system to monitor court activities and evidence while he was working from home, and his lack of initiative to be apprised of significant matters like the receipt of substantial cash evidence, constituted negligence. He was fined Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000.00) with a stern warning.
3. Hermito Dela Cruz III: Found liable for Gross Neglect of Duty. He deliberately disobeyed Judge Mupas’s specific and reasonable orders for safekeeping. His alternative plan to store the money in a stenographer’s cabinet was grossly improper and reckless. His actions were the direct and proximate cause of the loss. He was DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and with perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government office.
4. Liza I. Doctolero: Found NOT administratively liable. The Court accepted that she acted in good faith, believing there was a standing order from Judge Mupas to use her cabinet. She had no duty to safeguard evidence and was not negligent for not opening her cabinet for two weeks, as there was no need to access the transcripts. The charge against her was dismissed.
5. The Court also directed the motu proprio institution of an administrative disciplinary complaint against Legal Researcher Dana Lyne A. Areola, who was the officer-in-charge when the evidence was received and when it was lost, and directed her to file a comment.