RE: RIVARA’S COMPOUND A.M. No.
2006-18-SC
HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION,
Represented
by its President, Present:
MR.
JESUS L. LLANTADA
Complainant, PANGANIBAN, C.J.,
PUNO,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
-
versus - CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
MR.
FRANCIS A. CERVANTES, AZCUNA,
Respondent. TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated:
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
R E S O L
U T I O N
Tinga, J.:
This is an administrative complaint filed by the Rivara’s
Compound Homeowners’ Association (the Association), through its President, Mr.
Jesus L. Llantada,[1]
against respondent Francis H. Cervantes (Cervantes), Records Officer I, Records
Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS), Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), for Grave
Misconduct, Dishonesty and Breach of Trust.
Complainant
Llantada, in the sixty-four (64) page Complaint,[2] states
that Rivara Compound at
1. Unremitted monthly amortizations P 8,287.55
2. Penalties for delinquent payments 24,641.50
3. Documentary stamps 226,095.48
4. Membership fees 67,500.00
5. Subdivision survey fees 208,000.00
6. Equity Payments 372,235.93
P906,760.46[3]
Moreover,
complainant avers that respondent Cervantes, during his incumbency, never
caused a full audit of the Association’s books nor made the same available to
its members in violation of the Association’s by-laws. He also did not submit
any of the books, records, and financial statements to the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB). Under respondent Cervantes’s leadership, the
Association did not even conduct regular monthly and annual meetings.[4]
Further, complainant accuses him of withholding from member-homeowners “Award
Certificates” for lots awarded to them.[5]
Complainant
also alleges that at the moment respondent Cervantes is not even a member in good
standing of the Association as he refuses to pay his Association dues among
others and does not attend the monthly meetings.[6]
Complainant states that he and the other
member-homeowners already made several demands on respondent Cervantes for the
return of the misappropriated amounts to no avail. Instead, respondent
Cervantes allegedly responded with a threat that he will file a case of
harassment against complainant and the other member-homeowners if they continue
demanding reimbursement. This he stated with the reminder that he is “[s]omebody working in the Supreme Court, he could send anyone
to jail if he wants.” In fact, complainant adds, respondent Cervantes was
elected President of the Association because he had made the misrepresentation
in 1999 that he is a lawyer working with the Supreme Court. [7]
Complainant
prays for (1) the dismissal of respondent Cervantes from service for the
above-stated charges; (2) the return of the allegedly misappropriated amounts; and
(3) the turn-over of all the financial records, documents and properties of the
Association allegedly still in respondent Cervantes’s possession to the
Association’s Treasurer.[8]
Respondent
Cervantes in his Comment[9] dated
Complainant
in his Reply[11]
informs the Court that a criminal case for estafa has been filed against
respondent Cervantes before the Office of the Prosecutor of Marikina City. He also
mentions the padlocking or closing without a court order of the house of a
certain Arlene Perillo (Perillo) on
In
his Rejoinder[14]
dated
In
her Memorandum[16]
dated
The
other allegations of the complaint, however, were considered for further
investigation. Llantada and another witness, Aquiliza Gutierrez, a resident of
the subdivision and Acting Vice-President of the Association, testified to
support the allegations.
Atty.
Candelaria found the allegation that respondent Cervantes has misrepresented
himself as a lawyer working with the Court to be wanting in probative value. On
the other hand, the allegation that respondent Cervantes heralded his
connections with Atty. Andrada and Atty. Villarama was established by
substantial evidence. Atty. Candelaria reported in part as follows:
The allegation is worthy
of belief. This Office could not ponder why the complainant was able to get the
names of Atty. Andrada and Atty. Villarama in particular, in the same manner,
that his membership in the SC Choir came to the knowledge of Mr. Llantada, Ms.
Gutierrez and other residents of Rivara Compound, and its relation to the case
at bar.
It is not amiss to state that Atty. Villarama has not in
any manner took (sic) part in any stage of the investigation of the instant
complaint, in the same way that Atty. Andrada’s being under the CID, this
Office, would impinge on the outcome of the investigation of the case. The
overriding fact is that the names and the other information would not have come
to the knowledge of the complainant as well as his witness, had the same not
actually been uttered by Mr. Cervantes. To this Office, the latter’s claim that
it was impossible for one to utter the full names of their “connections” in a
mundane sort of gathering is not unlikely to happen. On the contrary, to this
Office, the uttering of at least the complete name or names of certain
“personalities” just like what Mr. Cervantes did although he denied the same,
is to make other people aware of who those people are, their connections with
them, and in particular, what can those people do by virtue of their positions
or place in the society. At any rate, what were actually alleged as their names
were “ATTY. EDWIN ANDRADA” and [“]ATTY. MARISSA VILLARAMA” (sic). In the case
of Atty. Villarama, it was not the latter’s full name that was uttered since it
was “Marissa” while her real first name is “Ma. Luisa” although she is known to
some as “Marissa.”[17]
Atty.
Candelaria made the following recommendations, to wit:
1. the Complaint, insofar as the civil and
criminal aspects attributed to the acts of Mr. Francis H. Cervantes in his then
capacity as President of the Rivara’s Compound Homeowner’s Association and all
matters raised in connection therein, be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,
without prejudice to the re-filing of the appropriate administrative charge
based on the judgment in the Criminal Case for Estafa;
and,
2. for having been found guilty of Simple
Misconduct, this being his first offense and considering his length of service
and very satisfactory performances in his job, as well as humanitarian
consideration, Mr. Francis H. Cervantes be imposed the penalty of REPRIMAND
with a warning that a violation of similar acts in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.[18]
Simple misconduct is
punishable by one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months of suspension for
the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. But, considering that
respondent Cervantes has been employed by the Court since 1997 and has been
receiving very satisfactory performance ratings, Atty. Candelaria lowered the penalty
and believed that the penalty of reprimand is in order.[19]
Except
for the penalty, the recommendation of Atty. Candelaria
is well-taken.
The Court cannot take cognizance of a
number of the allegations leveled against respondent Cervantes being of the nature
that should properly be threshed out in a court or agency clothed with
jurisdiction. Besides, the propriety of the imposition of administrative sanctions
would depend on the outcome of the case or cases, if any is filed. At the
moment, it is premature to determine whether respondent Cervantes should be held administratively liable for
the alleged dishonesty and grave misconduct.
However,
we believe as we agree with the recommendation of the OAS, that respondent
Cervantes should be reproved for publicizing his connections with the alleged
investigating officers of the instant case and for trumpeting the power that he
purportedly wields as an employee of the Court. The Court cannot overstress the
need for circumspect and proper behavior on the part of the court employees.[20] It is
well to recall our ruling in Re: Disciplinary Action Against Antonio Lamano,
Jr. of the Judgment Division, Supreme Court,[21] to
wit:
Government officials and employees, more specifically
those employed in the Judiciary, are bound by the highest standards of
propriety and decorum to maintain the people’s respect and faith in the
Judiciary. Such dictates apply not only between the said personnel and the
public but among co-workers as well. Any transgression or deviation from the
established norm of conduct, work related or not, amounts to a misconduct. Any
scandalous behavior or any act that may erode the people’s high esteem for the
Judiciary is considered an act unbecoming an employee of the Judiciary.[22]
By
reason of the nature and function of the Supreme Court, officials and employees
of the highest court of the land must live up to the strictest standards of
honesty, uprightness and integrity in the public service. The image of a court
of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the personnel
who work thereat, from the highest Justice to the lowest personnel. Court
employees are enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and
decency in their professional and private conduct in order to preserve the good
name and integrity of the court of justice.[23]
Respondent
Cervantes failed to meet this exacting standard. His actuation, although made
in a private gathering, has stained the image of his public office. Like any
member of the Judiciary, respondent is expected to be a model of fairness and
honesty not only in all his official conduct but also in his personal
actuations, including business and commercial transactions. Any conduct that
would be a bane to the public trust and confidence reposed on the Judiciary
shall not be countenanced.[24]
Indeed,
the Court finds respondent Cervantes guilty of simple misconduct. Misconduct is
defined as any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the
administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right
determination of the cause. It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful
conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.[25]
Section
52 B (2) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service[26]
imposes the penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6)
months for the first offense of simple misconduct. A second offense is
punishable by dismissal. For displaying conduct that casts a blight on the
image of the judiciary, we deem that the penalty of suspension of one (1) month
and one (1) day without pay would be a sufficient penalty for respondent
Cervantes’ offense.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Francis H. Cervantes, Records Officer I, Records Division, Office of
Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator is hereby SUSPENDED
without pay for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day. He is further WARNED
that
the commission of the same or similar
acts in the future will be dealt with more severely by this Court.
SO
ORDERED.
DANTE
O. TINGA
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Associate Justice |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAG0 Associate Justice |
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES Associate Justice |
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate
Justice
[1]Pursuant
to the Association’s Board Resolution No. 020, Series of 2006, Mr. Llantada has been duly authorized to file the instant
administrative complaint.
[20]See
Administrative Complaint for Non-payment
of Debt against Nahren Hernaez,
443 Phil. 697, 704 (2003); In Re:
Complaint for Failure to Pay Just Debts Against Esther T. Andres, A.M. No.
2004-40-SC,
[23]Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty
Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Sec. I & Angelita
C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Off. Clerk of Court, A.M.
No. 2001-7-SC & No. 2001-8-SC, 22 July 2005, 464 SCRA 1, 15.
[24]In Re: Complaint for Failure to Pay Just
Debts against Esther T. Andres, A.M. No. 2004-40-SC,
[25]Office of the Court Administrator v. Paderanga, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-01-1660,