Prosecutor LAURA E. MABINI, A.M. No. P-06-2150
Complainant,
Present:
- versus -
Panganiban, CJ,
Puno,
Quisumbing,
EUSTACIO RAGA,
Legal Ynares-Santiago,
Researcher, and
LILIA Sandoval-Gutierrez,
CARNACETE-RAGA, Carpio,
Process Server,
Regional Austria-Martinez,
Trial Court, Catbalogan,
Branch 28, Callejo, Sr.,
Respondents. Azcuna,
Tinga,
Chico-Nazario,
Garcia,
and
Velasco,
Jr., JJ
Promulgated:
June 21, 2006
x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- --- -- -- -- -- x
PER CURIAM:
Before
us is an administrative complaint filed by Prosecutor Laura E. Mabini, Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, Catbalogan, Samar, against
spouses Eustacio C. Raga, Jr., officer-in-charge and
legal researcher of Branch 27; and Lilia C. Raga, process server of Branch 28,
both of the Regional Trial Court of Catbalogan, Samar. Mabini’s letter-complaints
dated
“1.
Respondent spouses extort money from litigants and lawyers and
solicit contributions from politicians and businessmen using the name of the
court, especially during court’s social affairs;
“2.
Respondents actively participates in partisan political
activities;
“3.
Mrs. Raga stole a set of jewelry of Atty. Rebecca G. Almeda, former Clerk of Court, RTC, Catbalogan,
“4. Mrs. Raga uses government money to visit her
children studying in
“5. Mr. Raga,
a Bachelor of Laws graduate and enrolled in a refresher course at Christ the
King College, Calbayog City, leaves his office at
4:00 o’clock in the afternoon to be able to catch the last trip to Calbayog City to attend his classes which usually start at
5:30 p.m.;
“6. Mrs. Raga,
together with a relative, Mrs. Anita Rojas, also a court employee, tried to
induce complainant, then the Acting IBP Treasurer to withdraw Ten Thousand
Pesos (P10,000.00) from the IBP fund for catering expenses of the IBP Samar Chapter Christmas party;
“7. Mrs. Raga
wastes her time by distributing during office hours poisonous letters about
Judge Sibanah E. Usman,
RTC, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar
portraying Judge Usman as corrupt, and claiming that
Judge Usman’s wife, an employee of Branch 29, has
been receiving her salary despite being absent for two (2) months; and
“8.
On
The OCA issued two separate indorsements, both dated
On
Respondents deny soliciting
contributions from provincial public officials.[10] Respondent Lilia argues that these public
officials voluntarily donate to court employees during Christmas and other
special occasions. In the alternative,
she maintains that even if it were true that they had solicited contributions,
the act would not fall under Circular No. 4-91, which prohibits only
solicitations for raffles and athletic tournaments, and fund-raising projects
of barangays.[11]
As for the allegation that
respondents are involved in partisan political activities, respondent spouses
maintain that they never go beyond expressing their preference for a particular
candidate and monitoring the results of the canvassing. They contend that the fact that some of their
relatives are active in politics does not necessarily imply that they are, too.[12]
Respondent Eustacio
also denies the allegation that he leaves work at
As for the charge of malversation of public funds, respondent Lilia asserts that
her out-of-town trips on official business are always properly documented and
supported by certificates of appearance.[14]
Respondent Lilia also refutes
the charge of jewelry theft by presenting the Affidavit[15]
of Rebecca Almeda, the alleged victim. Almeda denies
knowledge of the alleged theft.
As regards the theft of the
stenographic machine, Lilia offers an alibi.
She maintains that it was physically impossible for her to commit the
alleged crime on
In the light of the contentious
issues presented and the inhibition of Judges Sinforiano
A. Monsanto[21] and Sibanah
E. Usman,[22]
this Court issued its February 19, 2001
Resolution,[23] referring the case to the
executive judge of the RTC of Calbayog City, Branch
32 for investigation, report, and recommendation.
In a letter dated
“In his Investigation Report dated
“However, as to the theft of stenographic machine,
Judge Navidad recommended that appropriate sanctions
be imposed for grave misconduct committed by Mrs. Raga as principal to the
crime and Mr. Raga as accomplice.
“During the hearing, Gerardo Geli,
Jr., Officer-in-Charge of Branch 29 testified that he discovered that the
stenographic machine was missing when he conducted an inventory of the court’s
equipment. He immediately reported the
loss to the Chief of Police of Catbalogan and also
sought the assistance of his friends and ‘compadres’,
including the brother of Mrs. Raga, Jesus Carnacete,
Process Server of Branch 29. Thereafter,
the machine was returned to the place from where it was taken.
“Maribel Velarde, Stenographer of Branch 29, testified that during
the time the subject stenographic machine was missing, she saw it in the house
of the respondents. The statement of Velarde was corroborated by the entry in the logbook made
by Security Guard Rogelio Felas which states that
Mrs. Raga, with her sister Aida C. Valera, had taken
home said machine on
The
OCA found no evidence to implicate respondent Eustacio
C. Raga, Jr. in the theft of the stenographic machine. Hence, it recommended
the dismissal of the complaint against him.[27] As for respondent Lilia C. Raga, she was
found administratively liable for grave misconduct and dishonesty. According to the OCA, the positive testimony
of stenographer Maribel Velarde
and the logbook entry made by security guard Rogelio Felas
sufficiently overcame respondent’s denials.
The OCA therefore recommended the dismissal of Lilia C. Raga from
service.[28]
The
findings and recommendations of the OCA are well-taken.
Indeed,
the charges of partisan political activity, jewelry theft, distribution of
poison letters and malversation of public funds are
all unsubstantiated and should thus be dismissed.
Complainant’s
allegation that respondents participated in partisan political activity has not
been proven. Complainant does not even
specify what partisan political activities respondents have supposedly engaged
in. Her complaint consisted of a single
sentence, which reads: “[Respondents]
are also well known in the locality [for] their active participation in
partisan political activity, a violation of the Civil Service Law.”[29] The records of the case yield no evidence in
support of this particular charge.
Further, the allegation of
jewelry theft has no leg to stand on. Even the alleged victim, Rebecca G. Almeda, denied losing a set of jewelry. Instead, she maintained that she had sold a
set of jewelry to respondent Lilia, who had since then paid for the set in
full.[30]
The charge of distribution of
poison letters against the judges was also left unsubstantiated. There is no iota of evidence that respondents
were either the authors or the distributors of the two unsavory letters[31]
attached to the Complaint.
Likewise, complainant failed to
adduce any shred of evidence supporting her allegation that respondent Eustacio usually left the office at
As
for the charge of malversation of public funds,
complainant contends that respondent Lilia obtained a reimbursement for a bogus
“official business” in
Lilia denies this allegation and
maintains that the evidence against her was fabricated.[35] In support of her defense, she has presented
PAL Ticket No. 079-4107055470-0,[36] which also bore the departure date of
October 18.
Unfortunately, complainant did
not adduce any further evidence to convince this Court that the allegedly tampered
PAL ticket of Latorre was actually the basis for
respondent’s reimbursement. As it stands, respondent’s contrary evidence
seriously casts doubts on the veracity of the charge.
In administrative proceedings,
the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the
allegations in her complaint.[37] As correctly observed by the OCA, herein
complainant failed to prove that respondents were guilty of partisan political
activity, jewelry theft, distribution of poison letters and malversation
of public funds. The acts imputed to
them remained mere accusations because of complainant’s failure to present
witnesses or corroborating evidence. We
therefore dismiss all the foregoing charges against respondents.
With regard to the charge of unlawful
solicitations, complainant presented a letter signed by Branch 28 employees,
including respondent Lilia, thanking Governor Roño
for his “donation” of P1,500.00.[38]
Respondent
contends that her receipt of the governor’s Christmas gift cannot be considered
an unlawful solicitation, which is prohibited by OCA Circular No. 4-91, because
the gift was unsolicited and not intended for a fund-raising project.[39]
Respondent’s
contentions are untenable. First of all,
OCA Circular No. 4-91 is not limited to fund-raising solicitations. It prohibits all forms of solicitations and receipt of contributions, as
indicated in its circular quoted below:
“Henceforth, all personnel of the lower
courts under the administrative supervision of the Office of the Court Administrator
are strictly enjoined from making any
form of solicitation for contributions as it is strictly prohibited by law.
Consequently, all those found soliciting for and/or receiving
contributions, in cash or in kind, from any person, whether or not a litigant
or lawyer, will be dealt with severely in accordance
with the sanctions prescribed by law.”[40]
This broad interpretation is
further supported by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards,[41]
which is the law that prohibits solicitations by public officials and
employees. Section 7 (d) of the code
states thus:
“Public officials and employees shall not solicit
or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor,
entertainment, loan or anything of
monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in
connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may
be affected by the functions of their office.”[42]
Clearly, a gift is covered by
the prohibition, so long as it has more than nominal monetary value. It is not necessary for the solicitation to
be for a fund-raising project.
Second, respondent Lilia cannot
take refuge in the fact that the gift was actually unsolicited, because the
mere receipt of gifts is prohibited.
Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 6713 defines “receiving any gift” as
follows:
“[T]he act of accepting
directly or indirectly, a gift from a person other than a member of his family
or relative x x x if the value of the
gift is neither nominal nor
insignificant, or the gift is
given in anticipation of, or in exchange
for, a favor.”[43]
The foregoing provision does not
distinguish between solicited and unsolicited gifts. As stated earlier, the mere receipt of gifts
is prohibited, so long as the value of the gift is neither nominal nor
insignificant; or the gift is given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a
favor.
In other words, the mere fact
that the gift received was unsolicited cannot, by itself, suffice to exonerate
the recipient. It would only suffice to
exonerate the recipient if the unsolicited gift is also nominal in value and
not given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor. In such a situation, the gift would fall
outside the purview of RA 6713, which expressly provides that the term “gift”
does “not include an unsolicited gift of nominal or
insignificant value[;] not given in
anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor from a public official or employee.”[44]
In this regard, we have pored over the records of the case and
found no proof whatsoever that a solicitation took place. We then note that the cash gift of P1,500.00 was received not by respondent Lilia alone, but
together with eleven other employees of Branch 28, to purchase lechon for their Christmas party;[45]
hence, the individual benefit of the employees may be considered nominal. Neither does it appear from the evidence that
the nominal gift was given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a
favor.
Thus, respondent Lilia cannot be
held liable under Republic Act No. 6713 because the governor’s gift, aside from
being unsolicited, was also nominal or insignificant in value; and not given in
anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor.
The receipt of the gift does not fall within the ambit of Section 7(d)
of RA 6713, in relation to Sections 3(c) and (d).
Nevertheless,
we cannot let this incident pass without issuing a reminder to court
personnel. The conduct and behavior of
all officials of an agency involved in the administration of justice, from the
presiding judge to the most junior clerk, should be circumscribed with a heavy
burden of responsibility.[46] Court employees should be careful to avoid
all actions that may reasonably give rise to the suspicion that they can be
influenced.[47] The solicitation and acceptance of gifts from
anyone -- public officials, litigants, or the public -- corrode public
confidence in the judicial system. For
the purpose of addressing this problem, the Court has promulgated the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel,[48]
which took effect on
“Sec. 2. Court personnel shall not solicit
or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any explicit or implicit
understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official
actions.”
We
now move on to the more substantial charge of dishonesty and grave misconduct
consisting of the theft of a stenographic machine. Complainant presented the following as proof
of respondent Lilia’s culpability:
1. Certified true copy of the logbook entry made
by the guard-on-duty, Rogelio A. Felas. The entry states that on
2.
Testimony of Maribel Velarde,
court stenographer of Branch 29, that she saw the subject machine in
respondent’s house[50]
3. Testimony of Gerardo Geli,
Jr., legal researcher and acting clerk of court of Branch 29, that he reported
to the PNP-Catbalogan[51]
the loss of the subject machine upon his discovery of the fact on
He likewise testified that the
machine mysteriously resurfaced after he had asked Lilia’s brother, Jesus Carnacite, to help him recover it.[52]
In her defense, respondent
presented evidence to prove that she was on official travel to
What is noticeable from the
evidence presented by respondent is the fact that they do not categorically place
her in Metro Manila on the date of the theft,
It is well-settled that alibi
prevails only if it is shown that it was physically impossible for the accused
to have been at the locus criminis at the time
of the commission of the crime.[58] It is clear from the foregoing evidence that
it was not impossible for respondent Lilia to be at the Bulwagan ng Katarungan at
Making logbook entries was part
of his duties as a security guard of the Bulwagan. Therefore, it carried the presumption that
official duty had been regularly performed,[59]
unless and until overcome by contrary evidence.
As correctly pointed out by the investigating judge and the OCA,
respondent has not shown any ill motive that could have impelled Felas to make an erroneous entry in the logbook and to
falsely implicate respondent.[60]
Further, court stenographer Maribel Velarde testified that
she had seen the stolen property in Lilia’s house.[61] Her positive testimony corroborated the
logbook entry made by Felas.
Lilia even strengthened Velarde’s testimony by admitting that this witness had
actually stayed in respondent’s home during the relevant period.[62]
In explaining that she had shared her home with Velarde,
who was beset by marital problems,[63] Lilia herself gave adequate basis for the
said testimony.
Moreover, it has not been shown
that the testimony of the witness was malicious or perjured. To the contrary, her testimony deserves
credence, because it was given despite the debt of gratitude she owed
respondent. It is not in accord with
ordinary human experience that a friend would make up stories and falsely
implicate someone who helped her in a time of dire need.
We thus find that the charge
against respondent Lilia C. Raga has been sufficiently established. The denials
interposed by respondent cannot prevail over the positive testimony of
complainant’s witness or over the logbook entry made in the performance of
official duty. Denial is a self-serving negative defense that cannot be given
greater weight than the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on
affirmative matters.[64]
There is no
shortage of cases on court employees’ grave misconduct involving theft. The prevailing jurisprudence reveals the Court’s intense disapproval of these acts.
In the Matter of the Loss of One (1) Tamaya
Transit, an Exhibit in Criminal Case No. 193[65] involves
the loss of court exhibits, which turned out to have been taken by respondent
for his personal gain. He was found guilty
of dishonesty and grave misconduct and was consequently dismissed from
service.
In
The Court Administrator v. Sevillo,[66]
process server William Sevillo was also dismissed
from service when he was found guilty of stealing mail matter from the post office.
In
Re:
Jovelita Olivas and
Antonio Cuyco,[67] respondent Olivas was found guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed
from service for taking several pieces of plyboard
from the Court of Appeals compound.
Re: Report on the Series of Theft and Robbery in
the Premises of the Supreme Court[68] is another
case of dismissal for grave misconduct of security personnel, who were found
guilty of stealing personal properties of court employees.
Considering the prevailing
jurisprudence and the foregoing facts, the Court agrees with the recommendation
of the investigating judge[69]
and the Office of the Court Administrator[70]
that Lilia C. Raga should be dismissed from the service for grave misconduct.
Such penalty is provided for in Rule XIV, Sec. 23(c),
on grave offenses of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No.
292. This penalty is reiterated in Civil
Service Memorandum Circular No. 30, series of 1989;[71]
and again in Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999.[72]
The latter likewise states that the penalty of dismissal from the service shall
carry with it the cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of
retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the
government service, unless otherwise provided in the decision.[73]
On the other hand, we find no
culpability on the part of respondent Eustacio C.
Raga, Jr. Consequently, the
recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator[74]
to dismiss the case against him is adopted.
The
Court cannot overemphasize the need for honesty and integrity on the part of
all those who are in the service of the judiciary.[75] As reiterated in the “Whereas” clauses of the
Code of Conduct for Court Personnel,[76] “in performing their duties and
responsibilities, court personnel serve as sentinels of justice[;]
and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and
dignity of the Judiciary and the people’s confidence in it.”[77]
In fact, no less than the
Constitution sanctifies the principle that a public office is a public trust,
and enjoins all public officers and employees to serve with the highest degree
of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.[78]
Public officials and employees are under obligation to perform the duties of
their office honestly, faithfully and to the best of their ability.[79]
In this regard, respondent Lilia
has been grossly deficient. By stealing court property, she has blatantly
degraded the judiciary and diminished the respect and regard of the people for
the court and its personnel. Consequently, she does not deserve to stay a
minute longer in the judicial service.
WHEREFORE, Lilia C. Raga is
found GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT. She is hereby DISMISSED from service, with forfeiture
of all benefits excluding accrued leave credits, if any; and with prejudice to
re-employment in any branch or agency of the government. The Complaint against Eustacio C. Raga,
Jr. is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
|
REYNATO S. PUNO |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING |
|
|||||||
|
Associate
Justice |
Associate
Justice |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ |
|
|||||||
|
Associate
Justice |
Associate Justice |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
RENATO C. CORONA |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES |
|
|||||||
|
Associate
Justice |
Associate
Justice |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA |
|
|||||||
|
Associate
Justice |
Associate
Justice |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
DANTE O. TINGA |
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO |
|
|||||||
|
Associate
Justice |
Associate
Justice
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-3.
[2]
[3]
[4] Re: Letter-Complaint against Solicitations for
Contributions by Court Personnel (May 31, 1991).
[5] Republic Act No. 3019 (1960).
[6] OCA
Memorandum dated
[7] Rollo, p. 32.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] Answer,
p. 9; rollo, p. 61.
[17] Rollo, p. 81.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] Letter
dated
[22] Letter
dated
[23]
[24] Now an associate justice of the Supreme Court.
[25] Dated
[26] OCA
Memorandum dated
[27]
[28]
[29] Rollo, p. 2.
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35] Answer,
pp. 6-8; rollo, pp. 58-60.
[36] Rollo, p. 79.
[37] Montes v. Mallare,
422 SCRA 309,
[38] Rollo, p. 31.
[39] Answer,
pp. 2-3; rollo, pp. 54-55.
[40] OCA
Circular No. 4-91. Emphasis supplied.
[41] Republic Act No. 6713 (1989).
[42] Emphasis
supplied.
[43] Emphasis supplied.
[44] Republic Act No. 6713 (1989), Sec. 3 (c). Underscoring
supplied.
[45] Rollo, p. 31.
[46] Nuez v. Cruz-Apao,
A.M. No. CA-05-18-P, 455 SCRA 288,
[47] Re: An Undated Letter with the Heading
"Exposé" of a Concerned Mediaman on the Alleged Illegal Acts of Judge Julian C.
Ocampo III of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Naga
City and Clerk of Court Renato C. San Juan, MTCC — Naga City, 411 Phil. 504, June 20, 2001.
[48] A.M.
No. 03-06-13-SC,
[49] Rollo, p. 8.
[50] Investigation
Report, p. 4.
[51] Rollo, p. 7.
[52] Investigation
Report, p. 4.
[53] Answer,
p. 9; rollo, p. 61.
[54] Rollo, p. 82.
[55]
[56]
[57] Answer,
p. 9; rollo, p. 61.
[58] Lucas v. CA, 438 Phil. 530,
[59] Rules of Court, Rule 131, Sec. 3 (m).
[60] Memorandum
dated
[61]
[62] Investigation
Report, p. 4.
[63]
[64] Caca v. CA, 341 Phil. 114,
[65] 200
Phil. 82,
[66] 336
Phil. 931,
[67] 431
Phil. 379,
[68] 444
Phil. 674,
[69] Investigation
Report, p. 6.
[70] Memorandum
dated
[71] Guidelines in the Application of Penalties in Administrative Cases.
[72] Revised
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[73]
[74] Memorandum
dated
[75] Re:
Report on the Series of Theft and Robbery in the Premises of the Supreme
Court, supra note 68.
[76] Supra at note 48.
[77]
[78] Constitution, Art. xi, Sec. 1.
[79] Gaviola v. Navarette, 341
Phil. 68,