[G.R. No. 89591-96.

September 8, 1999]

PEOPLE vs. HON. SANZ MACEDA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated SEPT 8 1999.

G.R. No. 89591-96 (People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Sanz Maceda, et al.)

We now resolve the motion of the Solicitor General and a Senior State Prosecutor seeking
reconsideration of this Court's decision promulgated on August 13, 1990, insofar as it found that
respondent judge committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders dated August 3, 7,
and 8, 1989, in criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355 of the Regional Trial Court of Antique.1 [Order
dated August 3, 1989, placing custody of respondent-accused Javellana into the Antique Provincial
Probation Officer; Order dated August 7, 1989, transferring custody of respondent-accused
Javellana to his own lawyers; Orders dated August 8, 1989, entrusting the custody of respondent-
accused Javellana to the Clerk of Court and ex-officio Provincial Sheriff, Deogracias del Rosario;
Rollo, p. 2.]

On October 29, 1986, Senior State Prosecutor Tirso D.C. Velasco filed with the Regional Trial Court,
Antique, six (6) separate informations charging respondent Avelino T. Jevellana, together with John
Paloy, Vicente Vegafria, Eduardo Iran alias "Boy Muslim," alias "Muklo," Rudolfo Pacificador alias
"Ding," Arturo F. Pacificador and several John Does, with murder, frustrated murder and four (4)
counts of attempted murder. The cases were consolidated and raffled to Regional Trial Court,
Branch 12, Antique, presided over by Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda.

In the course of the proceedings. Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda issued the questioned orders, as
follows: (1) Order dated August 3, 1989, placing custody over accused Javellana into the Antique
Provincial Probation Officer; (2) Order dated August 7, 1989, transferring custody over accused
Javellana to his own lawyers; and (3) Order dated August 8, 1989, entrusting custody over accused
Javellana to the Clerk ofCourt and ex-oficio Provincial Sheriff, Deogracias del Rosario.

On August 28, 1989, Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe files a petition with the Supreme
Court2 [Petition, Rollo, pp. 1-16.] to annul the aforecited orders alleging grave abuse of discretion of
respondent judge from respondent judge from hearing the case before his sala as well as the early
resolution of the people's motion to discharge one of the accused, Oscar Tiauson, to be utilized as
State witness, with prayer for temporary restraining order.
Before this Court could resolve this petition, the Solicitor General and Senior State Prosecutor
Trampe3 [Rollo, p. 57.] filed a supplemental petition. Still alleging grave abuse of discretion on the
part of Judge Maceda, petitioners questioned the: (1) denial of the motion to discharge accused
Oscar Tiauson to become a state witness; (2) respondent judge's continued insistence to proceed
with hearing the motion foe bail of respondent Javellana despite the pending motion for him to
inhibit himself from the case; and (3) contempt order for the arrest and commitment of Assistant
Prosecutor John Torralba in the Antique Provincial jail.

On August 13, 1990, this Court promulgated a decision finding no grave abuse of discretion in the
issuance of the orders of August 3, 7, and 8, 1989.4 [Decision, August 13, 1990, Rollo, p. 532.]

However, respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in continuously hearing respondent Javellana's petition for bail and ordering the arrest
and commitment of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor John Torralba for contempt due to his request
for postponement.5 [Ibid, Rollo, p. 532.] Hence we restrained judge Maceda from trying the criminal
cases involved.

On September 18, 1990, the Solicitor General and Senior State Prosecutor Trampe moved for
reconsideration of the decision insofar as the Court found that the trial court committed no grave
abuse of discretion in issuing the orders dated August 3, 7, and 8, 1989. They cited provisions of
the Revised Administrative Code:

A jail for the safe-keeping of prisoners shall be maintained at the capitol of each province; and in
the absence of special provision. All expenses incident to the maintenance thereof and of
maintaining prisoners therein shall be borne by the province."6 [Section 1729, Revised
Administrative Code.]

xxx

"The governor of the province shall be charged with the keeping of the provincial jail and it shall be
his duty to administer the same in accordance with law and the regulations prescribed for the
government of the provincial prison. The immediate custody and supervision of the jail may be
committed to the care of a jailer to be appointed by the provincial governor."7 [Section 1731,
Revised Administrative Code.] (Emphasis Supplied)

Furthermore, they cited Section 1735 of the same code, which provides that:

"In any province in which, in the opinion of the President of the Philippines, the provincial jail is not
safely guarded, he shall have authority by executive order to direct that the senior Constabulary
officer of such province shall take custody of the jail under the supervision of the Provincial
governor and guard the prisoners therein, using for this purpose members of the Philippine
Constabulary as jail guards."8 [Section 1735, Revised Administrative Code.] (Emphasis supplied)

However, in this case, the temporary restraining orders issued on August 31, and September 22,
1989 were not lifted.

On March 8, 1995, accused Arturo F. Pacificador surrendered to PNP Director General Recaredo A.
Sarmiento, II. Immediately accused Pacificador filed a motion to fix bail, which was opposed by the
Office of the Solicitor General. In an order dated April 3, 1995, Judge Antonio M. Natino,
temporarily replacing respondent judge as presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Brach 12,
Antique, refrained from acting on the motion because he considered the restraining order issued by
this Court to be still in force.

In a resolution dated July 19, 1999, this Court lifted the temporary restraining orders of August 31,
and September 22, 1989.9 [Rollo, p. 1475.] Another resolution dated July 20, 1999 directed the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Antique, presided over by Judge Antonio M. Natino, to proceed
with hearing respondent Javellana's petition for bail and to continue with the trial of Criminal
Cases Nos. 3350-3355.10 [Rollo, pp. 1476-1477.]

We find no reason to disturb the August 13, 1990 decision.

The crucial issue for resolution is whether respondent Judge Maceda committed grave abuse of
discretion in issuing the questioned orders of August 3, 7 and 8, 1989 above-mentioned. Petitioners
insist that "only the provincial governor can, by law, validly take custody of accused-respondent
Javellana in light of the mandatory language of the Revised Administrative Code."11 [Motion for
Reconsideration, ibid.]

We disagree with petitioners.

Sections 1729 and 1731 of the Revised Administrative Code did not mention anything regarding
custody over the person of the accused. Neither could Section 1735 of the Revised Administrative
Code be construed as conferring authority to the President of the Philippines custody over
prisoners. What the Revised Administrative Code provided was administrative supervision over
provincial jails. This was essentially executive in nature, which the judiciary cannot interfere with.

Respondent Javellana has been arrested and presented to the trial court because of the criminal
indictments against him. By such arrest, he is deemed to be under the custody of the law. And the
court, which is tasked with the administration of justice, has the authority and responsibility to
safeguard the person of the accused pending criminal proceedings, to prevent a miscarriage of
justice. In relation to this, the court has the discretion to adopt measures that would guarantee the
accused's attendance at the trial of the criminal case against him.
Contrary to the contention of petitioners, there were compelling reasons why respondent Javellana
should not be confined in the Provincial Jail of Antique. Respondent judge in his order of August 7,
1989 satisfactorily explained these, which this Court found proper to reproduce in full in its August
13, 1990 decision. There was an actual threat to the life of respondent Javellana if he would be
confined at the Antique provincial jail.

Under the circumstances respondent judge was concerned with the safety and well being of
respondent Javellana during detention. Hence, respondent Judge Maceda had to entrust the
custody of respondent Javellana to the provincial Probation Officer as the Police escorts assigned to
guard him were unceremoniously recalled by the police Station Commander of San Jose, Antique.
He was impelled to make certain that respondent Javellana would be properly detained and able to
appear at his prosecution at the proper time.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES petitioner's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. DAVIDE,
JR., C.J. and CHAIRMAN, is on official leave.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. P-220 December 20, 1978

JULIO ZETA, complainant,

vs.
FELICISIMO MALINAO, respondent.

BARREDO, J.:

Administrative complaint against Felicisimo Malinao court interpreter of the Court of First Instance of Catbalogan,
Samar charging as follows:

l — ILLEGALLY APPEARING IN COURT. — MR. Malinao has been appearing in the municipal
court of this town for parties like attorney when he is not an attorney. Reliable information also says
he has been appearing in the municipal courts of Daram, Zumarraga, Talalora and even Sta. Rita.
He is not authorized to do so we believe. He makes it his means of livelihood as he collects fees
from his clients. He competes with attorneys but does not pay anything. We believe that his doing so
should be stopped for a good government. These facts can be checked with records of those
municipal courts.

2 — GRAVE MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE. — Being employed in the Court of First Instance he would
instigate persons, especially in his barrio to grab land rob or coerce. In fact he has cases in the
municipal court in this town involving himself and his men. He incite them telling them not to be
afraid as he is a court employee and has influence over the judges. Those persons being ignorant
would believe him and so would commit crimes. This act of Mr. Malinao is contrary to good order
and peace as he is using his supposed influences to urge persons to commit crimes.
 3 — CRIME OF FALSIFICATION. — Information has it that he is unfaithfully filing his time record in
the CFI. Even he has been out practicing in the municipal courts sometimes he would fill his time
record as present. He receives salary for those absent days. This can be checked with time record
he has submitted and if he has any application for leave. He may try to cure it by submitting
application for leave but this should not be allowed as he has already committed crime.

4 — VIOLATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER AND CIVIL SERVICE LAW.-WE have reliable

information it is prohibited for a civil service employee to engage in private practice any profession or
business without permission from the Department Head. Mr. Malinao we are sure has not secured
that permission because he should not be allowed to practice as he is not an attorney. If that were
so, he violated that Executive Order and Civil Service Law and we are urgently and earnestly
requesting the Commissioner of Civil Service to investigate him on this. If warranted he should be
given the corresponding penalty as dismissal because we believe he deserve it. (Page 2, Record.)

After respondent filed the following 3rd indorsement relative to the above complaint:

Respectfully returned to the Honorable, the Secretary of Justice, Manila, thru the Honorable District
Judge, Court of First Instance, Branch I, Catbalogan, Samar, and thru the Honorable Judicial
Superintendent, Department of Justice, Manila, the undersigned's reply to the preceding
endorsements, to wit: That the alleged letter-complaint of one Julio Zeta is not inclosed in the first
indorsement, which absence has also been noticed and noted on the right hand corner of the said
first indorsement by the Clerk of Court, of this Court; that despite this absence, and without waiving,
however, his right to any pertinent provision of law, but for respect and courtesy to a Superior, he
hereby states that he has not violated any rule or law, much less Sec. 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil
Service Rules; that his participation for defendants' cause was gratuitous as they could not engage
the services of counsel by reason of poverty and the absence of one in the locality, said assistance
has also checked the miscarriage of justice by the Presiding Municipal Judge, now resigned; that he
is attaching herewith a carbon-original of a pleading submitted by Atty. Simeon Quiachon the
attorney of record for the defendants in Civil Case No. 24, entitled 'Jose Kiskisan versus Fidel
Pacate, et al. for Forcible Entry, in the Municipal Court of Talalora, Samar, which is a 'Motion To
Withdraw Exhibits', as Annex 'A', as part of this reply. (Page 5, Rec.)

the Department of Justice that had jurisdiction over the matter then, referred the said complaint and answer to
District Judge Segundo Zosa, Court of First Instance, Catbalogan, Western Samar, for investigation, report and
recommendation, and after due hearing, Judge Zosa submitted his report pertinent parts of which read thus:

Inspite of diligent efforts exerted by the Court to subpoena the complainant, Julio Zeta, who is said to
be a resident of Zumarraga, Samar the same had failed because the said Julio Zeta appears to be a
fictitious person

Inspite of the failure of the complainant to appear in the investigation in connection with his
complaint against Felicisimo Malinao, the Court nevertheless proceeded to investigate the case
against him by calling Judge Restituto Duran of Sta. Rita, Samar, Judge Juanito Reyes of
Zumarraga, Samar and Judge Miguel Avestruz of Daram, Samar.

Judge Restituto Duran of Sta. Rita, Samar, declared that according to his docket books the
respondent appeared as counsel for Vicente Baculanlan in criminal case No. 1247 in the Municipal
Court of Sta. Rita, Samar, for grave threats and in criminal case No. 1249 for the same accused and
Romulo Villagracia for illegal possession of firearm on August 5, 1960 and on September 17, 1970.

Judge Miguel Avestruz of Daram, Samar, declared that the respondent appeared as counsel in civil
case No. 39 in the Municipal Court of Daram, Samar, entitled Felix Versoza versus Victor Payao, et
al., for forcible entry on December 15, 1962, January 26, 1963, February 18, 1963 and on March 1,
1963.

Judge Juanito Reyes declared that on March 27, 1969, the respondent appeared as counsel for the
defendant in civil case No. 318 of the Municipal Court of Zumarraga entitled Restituto Centino
versus Jesus Tizon for forcible entry and again on June 17, 1970 in the same case.
 From the certification of the Clerk of this Court, it appears that the respondent had the following
entries in his daily time record:

1. Was on leave from office on August 5, 1960 and September 17, 1960;

2. Was present in office on December l5, 1962;

3. Was present in office on January 26, 1963, and present also on February 18, 1963 but undertime
by 1 hour;

4. Was on leave from office on March 1, 1963;

5. Was on leave from office on March 27, 1969; and

6. Was present in office on June 17, 1970 but undertime by 5 hours.

Comparing the dates when the respondent appeared before the aforementioned Municipal Courts
with his daily time records, he made it appear that on December 15, 1962 and February 18, 1963 he
was present in his office although according to the testimony of Judge Miguel Avestruz he was
before his Court on December 15, 1962 as well as on February 18, 1963. Again according to Judge
Juanito Reyes the respondent appeared in his Court on June 17, 1970. The respondent again made
it appear in his daily time record that he was present with an undertime of five hours. The
respondent did not offer any plausible explanation for this irregularity.

xxx xxx xxx

With respect to the crime of falsification of his daily time record as shown by the evidence, he had
made it appear that he was present in his office on December 15, 1962, February 18, 1963 and June
17, 1970 when as a matter of fact he was in the Municipal Court of Daram attending to a case
entitled Felix Versoza versus Victor Payao, et al., for forcible entry as well as in the Municipal Court
of Zumarraga attending to Civil Case No. 318 entitled Restituto Centino versus Jesus Tizon for
forcible entry. The Inquest Judge respectfully recommends that he be given stern warning and
severe reprimand for this irregularity.

With respect to the fourth charge, for violation of Section 12, Rule XVIII, Republic Act 2260, as
amended, again the evidence shows that respondent had been appearing as counsel in the
municipal courts of Sta. Rita, Daram and Zumarraga in violation of the rules of the Civil Service Law.
(Pp. 28-31, Record.)

We have carefully reviewed the record, and We find the conclusions of fact of the Investigator to be amply
supported by the evidence, particularly the documents consisting of public records and the declarations of the
judges before whom respondent had appeared. It is clear to Us that respondent, apart from appearing as counsel in
various municipal courts without prior permission of his superiors in violation of civil service rules and regulations,
falsified his time record of service by making it appear therein that he was present in his office on occasions when in
fact he was in the municipal courts appearing as counsel, without being a member of the bar, which, furthermore,
constitutes illegal practice of law. We, therefore, adopt the above findings of fact of the Investigator.

The defense of respondent that "his participation (sic) for defendants' cause was gratuitous as they could not
engage the services of counsel by reason of poverty and the absence of one in the locality" cannot, even if true,
carry the day for him, considering that in appearing as counsel in court, he did so without permission from his
superiors and, worse, he falsified his time record of service to conceal his absence from his office on the dates in
question. Indeed, the number of times that respondent acted as counsel under the above circumstances would
indicate that he was doing it as a regular practice obviously for considerations other than pure love of justice.

In the premises, it is quite obvious that the offense committed by respondent is grave, hence it warrants a more
drastic sanction than that of reprimand recommended by Judge Zosa. We find no alternative than to separate him
from the service, with the admonition that he desist from appearing in any court or investigative body wherein Only
members of the bar are allowed to practice.

WHEREFORE, respondent Felicisimo Malinao is hereby ordered dismissed from his position as interpreter in the
Court of First Instance, CFI, Zumarraga, Western Samar with prejudice to reemployment in the judicial branch of the
government.

Zeta v Malinao
Complaint:
Felicisimo Malinao, a court interpreter, has been appearing in the municipal court of his town like an
attorney when he in fact he is not one. He also collects fees from his clients and made it as a means of
livelihood. Clearly, it is a case of unauthorized practice of law since he was doing it as a regular practice and for
a consideration.
He also committed falsification as he made it appear in his daily time record that he is present when in
fact he is not.

Defense:
His participation for defendants’ cause was gratuitous as they could not engage the services of counsel
by reason of poverty and the absence of one in the locality.

Facts:
Julio Zeta, complainant, who is said to be resident of Zumarraga, Samar but appears to be a fictitious
person, filed a dismissal case against Malinao for unauthorized appearance in court and for committing
falsification.
As testified by trial judges, Malinao has indubitably appeared as counsel in several criminal and civil
cases. Those appearances were recorded in their docket books.
Held:
The number of times that respondent acted as counsel under the above circumstances indicate that he
was doing it as a regular practice obviously for considerations other than pure love of justice.
Clearly, respondent’s violations constitute illegal practice of law – appearing as counsel in various
municipal courts without permission of his superiors in violation of civil service rules and regulations, falsified
his time record of service by making it appear therein that he was present in his office when in fact he is in
municipal courts appearing as counsel, without being member of bar.