EN BANC
[A.M. No. P-96-1211. March 31,
2000]
Executive
Judge PACIFICO S. BULADO, complainant, vs. DOMINGO TIU, Jr., Utility
Worker I, Regional Trial Court, Dumaguete City, Branch 44, respondent. Maniksâ
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
In a letter dated January 18, 1986, Judge
Pacifico S. Bulado, then the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Negros Oriental, referred to the Office of the Court Administrator the matter
of Domingo T. Tiu, Jr., a utility worker assigned to Branch 44 of the RTC,
Dumaguete City. Tiu had numerous enemies among his co-employees, and had to be
re-assigned to different stations several times. Judge Bulado stated in his
letter that Tiu may fittingly be called "notoriously undesirable."
From Branch 44, Tiu was detailed to the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC. However, he performed poorly in said
office. Moreover, he physically assaulted the clerk of court of Branch 33,
after sexually harrassing her. Tiu was ordered to return to Branch 44, but the
presiding judge of said court, Judge Alvin L. Tan, wrote Judge Bulado to state
that if Tiu returned to his sala, there would be "fracas everyday which
will derail the administration of justice."[1]
Tiu was then detailed to the Office of the
Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Dumaguete City, but such
office also rejected him. He was then detailed to Branch 40.
Tiu’s other infractions include: (1) not
reporting for work and instead hiring somebody else to do his work for him; (2)
using the office of Branch 44 as his personal quarters, and inviting another
person to live with him therein; and (3) interfering with a pending criminal
case by promising to release a bail bond absent a court order therefor.[2] As regards the second and third infractions, Branch
44 clerk of court Atty. Armando Ricafort issued separate memoranda to
respondent ordering him not to use the office as his residence and not to
repeat his interference with a case.
Upon recommendation of the OCA, we opted to
treat Judge Bulado’s letter as an administrative complaint against Tiu and
ordered the latter to comment thereon.
In his comment, respondent branded as
without basis Judge Bulado’s allegations against him. He argued that the
complaint is merely a personal vendetta, caused by an old feud within the
Bulado clan, to which both Judge Bulado and respondent belong. Respondent also
pointed out that he filed administrative complaints against the same court
personnel complaining against him, including Judge Bulado and Atty. Ricafort,
and that the present complaint against him is simply harassment. He also
claimed that Judge Bulado asked him to withdraw his complaint against Atty.
Ricafort and the other court personnel, in exchange for a promotion and the
dismissal of a case against respondent filed in another sala of the RTC.
Replying to respondent’s comment, Judge
Bulado pointed out that the basis of his letter complaint were the letters and
reports he received from other court personnel regarding respondent’s
misbehavior. As regards the alleged feud within the Bulado clan, Judge Bulado
explained that this had long been settled and that members of the family had
restored their good relations. Manikanä
Judge Bulado stated that the Office of the
Ombudsman dismissed the complaint filed by respondent against Atty. Ricafort.
He denied having asked respondent to withdraw his complaint, and pointed out
that this Court would resolve administrative cases notwithstanding withdrawal
of the complaint. He also stressed that he could not have promised respondent a
promotion since respondent was not even working in his sala.[3]
On August 4, 1997, we referred this
administrative matter to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
In a memorandum dated February 2, 1998, the
OCA recommended respondent’s dismissal from the service, with forfeiture of all
benefits and with prejudice to re-entry to any government office, including
government-owned and controlled corporations.
The OCA gave weight to Judge Bulado’s
allegations because his letter-complaint was supported by numerous affidavits
executed by other court personnel, among them judges and clerks of court, all
attesting to respondent’s errant behavior. The OCA particularly denounced the
violence and savagery displayed by respondent (1) when he engaged Madonna
Macalua, a clerk at branch 44, RTC, Dumaguete City, in a verbal tussle as he
interfered with a criminal case pending before Branch 44, whose records were
under the care and custody of Macalua; and (2) when he punched Atty. Nieves Ivy
Y. Carriaga, clerk of court of Branch 33, RTC, Dumaguete City, in the face.
Such behavior, according to the OCA, does not have a place in the judiciary.
Meanwhile, in a 3rd Indorsement dated May
12, 1999, Judge Alvin L. Tan, presiding judge of Branch 44, RTC, Dumaguete City,
informed this Court that respondent has a pending application for the position
of Clerk III at Branch 41, RTC, Dumaguete City. The application could not be
acted upon due to this pending administrative case against respondent, per
Section 14, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules of the Civil Service, which
disqualifies a person with a pending administrative case from promotion.
Judge Tan informed the Court that Judge
Bulado, the complainant in this case, had already forgiven respondent, who had
reportedly mended his ways. In this regard, Judge Tan recommended that the case
against respondent be withdrawn to pave way for respondent’s promotion to Clerk
III.
Required to evaluate Judge Tan’s
recommendation, the OCA reiterated its earlier memorandum recommending the
dismissal of respondent. The OCA pointed out that actions in administrative
cases are independent of the will of the complainant. Public interest requires
that proceedings therein continue despite withdrawal of the complaint.
We agree with the recommendation of the OCA. Oldmisâ o
While the complainant in this case may have
forgiven respondent, this Court, charged as it is with enforcing discipline in
the judiciary, cannot simply close its eyes to respondent’s acts of extreme
intransigence. Withdrawal of the complaint will not free respondent from his
administrative liability,[4] particularly because administrative proceedings
against public employees are imbued with public interest, public office being a
public trust.[5]
The need to maintain the faith and confidence
of the people in the government, its agencies and its instrumentalities
requires that proceedings in administrative cases should not be made to depend
on the whims and caprices of the complainants who are, in a real sense, only
witnesses therein.[6] This Court cannot be bound by the unilateral act of
a complainant in a matter that involves its disciplinary authority over all
employees of the judiciary; otherwise, our disciplinary power may be put to
naught.[7]
The records clearly reveal that respondent had
committed acts amounting to grave misconduct. Under Section 22, Rule XIV of the
Omnibus Rules of the Civil Service, such an offense is punishable by dismissal
at the first instance. Under Section 9 of the same rule, the penalty of
dismissal shall carry with it forfeiture of leave credits and retirement
benefits, and disqualification from reemployment in the government service.
WHEREFORE, respondent Domingo Tiu, Jr., Utility Worker,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Dumaguete City, is hereby DISMISSED from the
service, with forfeiture of all retirement and other benefits, and with
prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the government, including
government-owned and controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo,
Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and
De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. Ncmâ
[1] Rollo, p. 8.
[2] This latter infraction was the subject of another administrative case, Macalua v. Tiu, Jr., 275 SCRA 320 (1997), in which respondent was suspended for one month and one day for simple misconduct.
[3] Judge Bulado was the presiding judge of Branch 33, RTC, Dumaguete City.
[4] Estreller v. Manatad, Jr., 268 SCRA 608, 616 (1997).
[5] Gacho v. Fuentes, Jr., 291 SCRA 474, 483 (1998).
[6] Estreller v. Manatad, Jr., supra; Gacho v. Fuentes, Jr., supra.
[7] Sandoval v. Manalo, 260 SCRA 611, 620 (1996).