SC fires judge for ‘borrowing’ court funds
THE Supreme Court has dismissed a trial court judge for borrowing money from court collections.
In a per curiam (anonymous) decision, voting 8-5 (with 5 voting for a lesser penalty but concurring in the finding of guilt), the high court dismissed Nueva Vizcaya Municipal Trial Court Judge Alexander Balut.
Aside from dismissal from service, he was meted with the penalty of forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits and barred him from re-employment in any branch of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
The case stemmed from a financial and judicial audit conducted by the high court at the Municipal Trial Courts of Bayombong and Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. It was discovered that Balut, who has been in the judiciary for 22 years, was borrowing money from various funds of the court collections.
Investigation showed that withdrawal slips for various amounts executed on several occasions showed that they were signed by Balut or his court interpreter with notations such as “judge,” “for Judge,” “taken by judge,” and “given to judge.”
“Judge Balut’s conduct fell short of the standard required of judges, which is that they must adhere to the highest tenets of judicial conduct. Because of the sensitivity of his position, a judge is required to exhibit, at all times, the highest degree of honesty and integrity and to observe exacting standards of morality, decency and competence,” the high court said.
The high court noted that Judge Balut himself issued a certification that his cash accountability as of April 2002 with the Fiduciary fund was P202,774.42. The Judge has managed to pay his cash liabilities.
But the high court said payment “does not free him from the consequences of his wrongdoings.”
“His unwarranted interference in the court collections deserves sanction and not even his full payment of his accountabilities will exempt him from liability,” the high court said.
“Neither will his long tenure (22 years of service) mitigate his liability; his offense was not a single or isolated act but a series of acts committed in a span of several years. He was a repeat offender, perpetrating his misdeeds with impunity not once, not twice but several times in three different stations,” the high court added.
He was earlier fined and “found guilty of undue delay in deciding 33 cases submitted for decision and in failing to resolve 101 motions within the 90-day reglementary period.” AC
