SC orders contempt charges vs LGU-detailed court worker
The SC cited its inherent power to cite individuals for contempt for conduct that impedes, obstructs, or degrades the administration of justice.
The Supreme Court (SC) said it cannot administratively discipline a local government employee whose detail to a lower court it did not approve, but the employee may still be cited for contempt.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh released recently, the SC Third Division directed the executive judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Baguio City to initiate contempt proceedings against a former Baguio City government employee detailed to the court without SC approval.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by one “Mr. Abenes,” who discovered that his marriage solemnized at the MTCC had not been registered with the local civil registrar.
Abenes alleged that the ex-court employee failed to register his marriage despite receiving a P500 fee. The court worker later allegedly asked Abenes to pay P5,000 for another marriage certificate to be issued.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that the worker had received money from several couples whose marriages had been solemnized by the MTCC but had not been registered. The OCA also found that Corpuz’s detail to the MTCC had not been approved by the SC, as required under Administrative Circular 28-2008.
Voided
The Judicial Integrity Board recommended that Corpuz be held administratively liable and fined P150,000. The SC adopted the findings that Corpuz had undermined the image of the courts but rejected the recommended administrative penalty.
Under Administrative Circular 28-2008, the SC exercises administrative supervision over locally funded employees detailed to first- or second-level courts. However, such employees must first secure permission from the SC through the OCA.
Because the worker’s detail had not been approved, the SC ruled that it was void. The Court therefore had no administrative supervision or disciplinary jurisdiction over the worker.
The SC clarified, however, that locally funded employees remain subject to its inherent power to cite individuals for contempt for conduct that impedes, obstructs or degrades the administration of justice.