This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-04-07 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Judge Tamang approved bail bonds issued by Covenant although they manifestly lacked the required clearance from the Supreme Court indicating that Covenant was qualified to transact business with the courts. As earlier stated, Covenant was a blacklisted company at the time of issuance of the bail bonds. She was thereby guilty of a neglect of duty, for, according to Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Confiscated Cash, Surety and Property Bonds at RTC, Tarlac City, Brs. 63, 64 & 65,[42] the judge is still bound to review the supporting documents before approving the bail bonds, even if it is the Clerk of Court who has the duty to ascertain that the bail bonds are in order, and that all requisites for approval have been complied with. The Court concurred with the OCA's following observation submitted in said case, to wit: Although the duty to ensure compliance with the requisites of the bail bond application rests mainly with the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized personnel and the task of the Judge is only to approve the same, said task has an accompanying responsibility on the part of the approving Judge to review or determine its validity. Understandably, he should be employing the minimum standard the rules require the clerks of court to observe. Considering the seriousness of the purpose in the posting of bail bond, approval thereof should pass through strict scrutiny and with utmost caution on the part of both the Clerk of Court (or his duly authorized personnel) and the approving Judge.[43] | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As held by the Court in Padilla v. Judge Silerio,[37] in "the discharge of the functions of his office, a judge must strive to act in a manner that puts him and his conduct above reproach and beyond suspicion. He must act with extreme care for his office indeed is laden with a heavy burden of responsibility. Certainly, a judge is enjoined, his heavy caseload notwithstanding, to pore over all documents whereon he affixes his signature and gives his official imprimatur." In Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Confiscated Cash, Surety and Property Bonds at the Regional Trial Court of TarlacCity, Branches 63, 64 and 65,[38] the Court found respondent judge therein negligent for failure to exercise the necessary diligence in the performance of his duties and was imposed a fine of P5,000.00. | |||||
|
2007-10-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In Criminal Case No. 393, Judge Bugtas not only wrongfully accepted the bail bond but also approved a spurious property bond. In Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Confiscated Cash, Surety and Property Bonds at RTC, Tarlac City, Branches 63, 64 and 65,[58] the Court held that judges are bound to review the bond documents before approving the bond. In that case, the Court agreed with the observations of the OCA that:Although the duty to ensure compliance with the requisites of bail bond application rests mainly with the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized personnel and the task of the Judge is only to approve the same, said task has an accompanying responsibility on the part of the approving Judge to review or determine its validity. Understandably, he should be employing the minimum standard the rules require the clerks of court to observe. Considering the seriousness of the purpose in the posting of bail bond, approval thereof should pass through strict scrutiny and with utmost caution on the part of both the Clerk of Court (or his duly authorized personnel) and the approving Judge. (Emphasis ours) | |||||