THIRD
DIVISION
FRANCISCO
D. MARTILLANO, A.M. No. P-06-2134
Complainant, [Formerly
OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2180-P]
Present:
- versus - QUISUMBING,
J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES
TINGA,
and
SHERIFF MANUEL L. ARIMADO, VELASCO, JJ.
Regional Trial Court, Branch 4,
Respondent. Promulgated:
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
Tinga, J.:
Francisco Martillano
(Martillano) is the respondent in I.S. No. 04-0531
for violation of Section 3(b) in relation to Sections 2(g) and 4 of Republic
Act No. 9287, filed against him by a certain Emerito
Zamora with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Legaspi
City. During the preliminary investigation of the case, Martillano
submitted a Counter Affidavit[1] in
which he alleged as a defense that his liability for the offense had already
been settled by his payment of a fine in the amount of P2,500.00 which
he handed to respondent Sheriff Manuel Arimado
(Sheriff Arimado).
Finding probable cause against Martillano,
Assistant City Prosecutor Solon Sison (Prosecutor Sison) recommended the filing of an Information against
him. Prosecutor Sison,
however, advised Martillano to “initiate the
appropriate action against certain individuals who may have exercised on him
deceit, or otherwise inflicted on him financial loss.”[2]
The Information against Martillano was docketed as Criminal Case No. 110479 in the sala of Judge Henry Basilia
(Judge Basilia) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Martillano alleges that Sheriff Arimado received from him the amount of P2,500.00
upon the latter’s representation that he will assist them in settling I.S. No.
04-0531. Sheriff Arimado allegedly told Martillano that he was able to persuade and convince
Prosecutor Sison not to prosecute the case in exchange
for Martillano’s admission of his guilt and payment
of a fine of P2,500.00. However,
in an Order dated
In his Compliance[4]
dated November 26, 2004, which he adopts[5] as
his comment to the present case, Sheriff Arimado
avers that it was Martillano’s wife and two (2)
companions who sought his help in looking for counsel to assist them in the
case against Martillano. Martillano’s
wife allegedly left with him the amount of P2,500.00 as advance payment
for said counsel. The following day, however, Martillano’s
wife returned to inform him that they no longer needed counsel as the case had
already been dismissed. Sheriff Arimado told the supposed counsel about the new development
but the latter replied that a case would still be filed with the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities because the penalty imposable is only fine. Sheriff Arimado claims that he relayed this message to Martillano. He adds
that his only intention was to extend assistance to Martillano
and that he would return the money to the latter upon “retrieval.”
The case was referred to Hon. Romeo
S. Dañas, Executive Judge, RTC of Legaspi
City, for investigation, report and recommendation.[6]
After due proceedings in which both
parties were heard, the case was submitted for resolution.[7]
Executive Judge Avelino V. Rodenas,
Jr. issued a Resolution[8]
dated
It should be stated at the outset
that Martillano’s lack of interest in pursuing this
case does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction, under Section 6, Article VIII of
the Constitution, to investigate and decide complaints against erring employees
of the judiciary.
The fact that Sheriff Arimado received P2,500.00 from Martillano’s
wife[9] is
not in dispute. The only variance in the testimonies of the parties is that
while Martillano claims that the money was given to
Sheriff Arimado supposedly to pay for the fine
imposed against Martillano, Sheriff Arimado claims that it was intended for the lawyer whose
services he was supposed to procure to assist Martillano.
This difference, however, is
irrelevant because Sheriff Arimado was unauthorized
to receive money from a litigant for whatever purpose especially since he was
the sheriff in the sala of Judge Armes before whom Martillano’s
case was then pending. Sheriff Arimado’s act is a
misconduct defined as “any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned
in the administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to
the right determination of the cause.”[10]
In Office of the Court
Administrator v. Duque,[11]
we held respondent liable for simple misconduct in view of the absence of
evidence that she was moved by bad faith, dishonesty or hatred when she
received the amount of P120,000.00 from a litigant without
authority. Likewise, the Executive Judge
did not mention and we do not glean any dishonest or fraudulent motive in Sheriff
Arimado’s action.
Sec. 52(B)(2) of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service penalizes simple misconduct with
suspension ranging from one (1) month
and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the
second offense. This is not Sheriff Arimado’s first offense. He admits that he was previously
suspended in two (2) administrative cases filed against him.[12]
However, in view of the fact that
Sheriff Arimado was not motivated by any evil
intention and had already returned the P2,500.00 which he received from Martillano,[13]
we are moved by compassion not to dismiss Sheriff Arimado
but merely to suspend him again without pay for two (2) months. This suspension comes with a reminder to
everyone in the judiciary to act with utmost circumspection for any
misbehavior, whether true or only perceived, on the part of court personnel
would most certainly reflect never too kindly on the judiciary.[14]
WHEREFORE, Sheriff IV Manuel D. Arimado of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4,
SO ORDERED.
DANTE
O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
[3]It appears that after the case was dismissed for lack of probable cause, the City Prosecutor’s Office re-entertained the case on the basis of additional allegations and evidence against Martillano. Martillano then filed the Counter Affidavit which was made the basis of this administrative case.
[9]TSN, P2,500.00.
[10]Office
of the Court Administrator v. Duque, A.M.
P-05-1958,
[13]Sheriff
Arimado handed to Martillano
the amount of P2,500.00 during the hearing conducted by the Executive
Judge.