Baldoza v.

Dimaano (May 5, 1976)

Administrative Matter in the Supreme Court.
Antonio, J.
Facts:
Municipal Secretary of Taal, Batangas, charges Municipal Judge Dimaano with ause of authority in
refusing to allow employees of the Municipal Mayor to e!amine the criminal doc"et records of the
Municipal Court to secure data in connection with their contemplated report on peace and order
conditions of the municipality.
#espondent answered that there has never een an intention to refuse access to o$cial court
records ut that the same is always su%ect to reasonale regulation as to who, when, where and
how they may e inspected. &e further asserted that a court has the power to prevent an improper
use or inspection of its records and furnishing copies may e refuse when the motivation is not
serious and legitimate interest, out of whim or fancy or mere curiosity or to gratify private site or
promote pulic scandal.
'n his answer, respondent oserved(
o #estrictions are imposed y the Court for fear of an ause in the e!ercise of the right.
o There has een recent tampering of padloc"s of the door of the Court and with this, to allow
an indiscriminate and unlimited e!ercise of the right to free access, might do more harm
than good.
o #e)uest of such a magnitude cannot immediately granted without ade)uate delieration
and advisement
o Authority should *rst e secured from the Supreme Court
Case was referred to Judge #iodi)ue for investigation and report. At the preliminary hearing, Taal
Mayor Cora+on Cani+a *led a motion to dismiss the complaint to preserve harmony and cooperation
among o$cers. This motion was denied y 'nvestigating Judge ut he recommended the
e!oneration of respondent.
'nvestigating Judge,s report avers that complainant was aware of the motion to dismiss and he was
in conformity with it. Communications etween complainant and respondent reveal that respondent
allowed the complainant to open and view the doc"et oo"s of the respondent under certain
conditions and under his control and supervision.
-nder the conditions, the Court found that the respondent has not committed any ause of
authority
Issue. /01 respondent acted aritrarily in the premises 2when he allowed the complainant to open and
view the doc"et oo"s of respondent3
eld. 1o. The respondent allowed the complainant to open and view the doc"et oo"s of respondent
under certain conditions and under his control and supervision. 't has not een shown that the rules and
condition imposed y the respondent were unreasonale. The access to pulic records is predicated on
the right of the people to ac)uire information on pulic concern.
!ules"#$inci%les:
'n 4eople e! rel. Title 5uarantee 6 T. Co vs. #ailly, the Court said.
78/hat the law e!pects and re)uires from his is the e!ercise of an uniased and impartial %udgment, y
which all persons resorting to the o$ce, under legal authority, and conducting themselves in an orderly
manner, shall e secured their lawful rights and privileges, and that a corporation formed in the manner in
which the relator has een, shall e permitted to otain all the information either y searches, astracts,
or copies, that the law has entitled it to otain.
9!cept, perhaps, when it is clear that the purpose of the e!amination is unlawful, or sheer, idle curiosity8't
is not their prerogative to see that the information which the records contain is not :aunted efore pulic
ga+e, or that scandal is not made of it8't is the legislature and not the o$cials having custody thereof
which is called upon to devise a remedy.;
Justice Briones in his concurring opinion predicated such right on the constitutional right of the press to
have access to information as the essence of press freedom.
The 1ew Constitution 2<=>?@3 e!pressly recogni+es that the people are entitled to information on matters
of pulic concern and thus are e!pressly granted access to o$cial records.
'nformation is needed to enale the memers of society to cope with the e!igencies of the times.
Dis%ositive. /&9#9A0#9, the case against respondent is herey dismissed.