Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
FELOMINO
D. MENDOZA, JR. A.M. NO. P-05-2034
and
FELO JANE M. MARGATE, (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1930-P)
Complainants,
Present:
PANGANIBAN,
C.J.
(Chairperson)
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO,
SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO,
JJ.
ANNALEE
C. NAVARRO,
Utility
Worker, Municipal Trial
Court,
Respondent. September 11, 2006
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before the
Court is a Complaint[1]
with an attached Joint Affidavit[2]
executed by Felomino D. Mendoza, Jr. and Felo Jane M.
Margate charging Annalee C. Navarro, Utility Worker, Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) of
The allegations of complainants, as
contained in their Joint Affidavit, are as follows:
That on September 09, 2003, a certain Analie Navarro, regular Utility Worker assigned at Municipal Trial Court of the Local Government Unit of Asuncion, Davao del Norte, collected from us the amount of two hundred pesos (P200.00) as payment for Joint Affidavit and Affidavit of Support for our mother, Virginia D. Mendoza who had been confined at Alegre Medical Clinic, Kapalong, Davao del Norte;
That when we asked the official receipt for the said sworn statements, she furnished us the receipt for Joint Affidavit bearing number 17232702 in the amount of twenty four pesos (P24.00); and Affidavit of Support bearing number 17232652 in the amount of one peso (P1.00);
That when we informed one of her colleagues about what she had done to us, he said that she had been doing this for quite a long time;
That we executed this affidavit to inform the authorities concerned of the facts above stated and for whatever legal purpose it may serve us best.[3]
The complaint
was originally filed with the Office of the Ombudsman for
In her Comment[6],
respondent denied the charges imputed by complainants against her, contending
as follows:
x x x x
a.
It is not true that I received from the complainants
the amount of P200.00 because what they actually gave me and which I
actually received from them was only the amount of P25.00;
b.
As requested by them, I issued a receipt for the Joint
Affidavit P24.00 for the JDF and P1.00 for the GF receipt or a total of P25.00,
because I learned that this rate or fee for preparation of affidavits
prevailing in the municipality;
c. I immediately prepared the affidavits requested by the complainants in the sincere belief that I was helping them, hence, instead of filing a case against me, complainants should be thankful that I immediately accommodated their request for preparation of affidavits prevailing in the municipality;
3. That I understand that preparation of affidavits
is the practice in all courts throughout the country in municipalities where
there are no law offices or no notaries public, like in
4. That in all candor, I prepared the affidavits knowing that there is nothing wrong with it, as it is being done by employees in other courts, as well as to supplement the very low income which I am receiving from the court as a Utility Worker in the Municipal Trial Court of Asuncion, Davao del Norte;
5. That I am the only breadwinner of the family with five (5) children and my husband is not gainfully employed;
6. That after having been operated for Breast Cancer and underwent Chemotherapy I have been on continuous medication since then up to the present; copies of my medical records are hereto attached;
7. That I request this Honorable Office to dismiss the complaint against me as I believe that I have not done anything wrong. However, if this Honorable Office would consider wrong and as an offense the preparation of the affidavits and my charging of fees, then I respectfully plead to this Honorable Court to be lenient to me and be compassionate to my plight and to my family, especially that this is my first offense as an employee of the Municipal Trial Court of Asuncion, Davao del Norte.[7]
Upon recommendation of the OCA,[8] the Court,
in separate Resolutions, dated July 11, 2005, re-docketed the complaint as a
regular administrative matter and referred the same to the Executive Judge of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Tagum, Davao del Norte for investigation, report and
recommendation.[9]
After conducting an investigation,
Executive Judge Oscar G. Tirol submitted his Investigation Report, Evaluation
and Recommendation dated
Respondent is the Utility Worker of the Municipal Trial Court of Asuncion, Davao del Norte, then presided over by now RTC Judge Justino G. Aventurado. She is married and has five children. She did not finish first year college and on November 1999 underwent mastectomy of her left breast.
x x x x
On
Since
Felomino was at work on
On
her way to court in the morning of September 9, Felojane obtained P200.00
from Felomino [for] the documents needed (TSN, p. 2 to 3).
At P100.00 per affidavit, the total
cost would be P200.00 (TSN, p. 4).
Felojane
made no attempt to haggle on the cost mentioned. Respondent directed her to
gave [sic] the names of the “two disinterested persons.” Two persons at the
ground floor of the building whom Felojane knew agreed to sign the affidavit
and their names were what she gave to respondent who then prepared the two
affidavits (TSN. p. 8). It was already lunchtime when respondent finished
typing the two affidavits, so after Felojane got the signatures of the two
disinterested persons, she was told by respondent to whom she gave P200.00,
to leave the affidavits and be back at 2:00 P.M. since Judge Aventurado at that
time would be back from MTC Kapalong (where he was also assigned as acting
judge) for the notarization required (TSN, p. 4).
At P200.00
(TSN, p. 5 and 6).
When
Felomino got hold of the receipts given to Felojane, he felt aggrieved seeing
that the amounts therein reflected totaled only P25.00 when what
respondent in fact received was P200.00. He also felt mad considering
that he and respondent were even neighbors in the same building (TSN, p. 7).
A week after the transaction, Felomino met respondent and confronted her about her overcharging. Respondent replied that they used [the] rest of the money for “pasahe” and for snacks. This angered Felomino even more and was advised by the municipal administrator to sue respondent at the Ombudsman (TSN, p. 7).
x x x x
The
respondent admitted preparing the two affidavits for Felojane Margate towards
x x x x
The
respondent also admitted that she actually received the amount of P200.00
from Felojane Margate x x x.
x x x x
While respondent admittedly prepared the two affidavits that complainants needed, she did not go as far as notarizing them. The affidavits (no copy of which were submitted by complainants to the undersigned investigator) were notarized by Judge Aventurado himself when he returned to court in the afternoon of that day.
Respondent
has been candid enough, and appeared contrite, when she admitted to the
undersigned that she received P200.00, but issued receipts for P25.00
only, thus wittingly failing to return the balance of P175.00 to
complainants. And while complainants did not at once demand return of the
excess of P175.00, this circumstances [sic] does not make the scheme any
less sordid for a court employee as respondent is.[10]
x x x x
In a Resolution dated
In its Memorandum of
The Court sustains the conclusion of
the OCA and the investigating judge that respondent is guilty of simple
misconduct but modifies the recommended penalty.
Respondent admitted before the
investigating judge that she prepared two affidavits for the complainants; that
she received the amount of P200.00 from complainant Felo
Jane but only issued two receipts in the amounts of P24.00 and P1.00;
that she did not return Felo Jane’s change of P175.00;
and that she misappropriated a portion of the said change.
Under the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, the following are the functions of a Utility Worker:
2.2.7. Utility Worker
2.2.7.1. acts as courier of the Court
2.2.7.2. maintains and keeps custody of a record book on matters dispatched by him;
2.2.7.3. monitors messages received and/or delivers mail matter to court employees;
2.2.7.4. sews originals of records, pleadings/ documents as directed by the Branch Clerk of Court, docket clerk and-clerk-in-charge in the strict order of dates in which received and in the correct expediente, seeing to it that they are sewn straight, and that no letterings or parts thereof are stitched;
2.2.7.5 maintains cleanliness in and around the court premises; and
2.2.7.6. performs such other functions as may be assigned by the Presiding Judge and/ or Branch Clerk of Court.[14]
There is
nothing in the above-enumerated functions that authorizes a utility worker of
the court to perform clerical tasks such as the preparation of an affidavit.
Respondent
declared before Judge Tirol that it was Judge Aventurado, then presiding judge
of MTC, Asuncion, Davao del Norte, who encouraged her to learn to prepare
affidavits in order for her to earn additional income and that it was the
acting branch clerk of court who referred complainant Felomino to her. It is
true that Sub-section 2.2.7.6 allows a utility worker to “perform such other
functions as may be assigned by the Presiding Judge and/or Branch Clerk of
Court. However, the Court cannot give credence to respondent’s self-serving
claims because these are mere allegations unsupported by convincing and
credible proof.
Even granting, for the sake of
argument, that respondent was indeed authorized by the presiding judge or the
branch clerk of court to prepare affidavits requested from their office, she is
not excused from asking P200.00 from complainants and thereafter issuing
a receipt for the amount of P25.00 only without returning the change of P175.00.
The Court
has consistently held that persons involved in the administration of justice
ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the
public service.[15]
The conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the
lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy
burden of responsibility.[16]
This Court cannot countenance any act or omission by all those involved in the
administration of justice, where such act or omission would violate the norm of
public accountability and diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[17]
In the
present case, respondent’s improper conduct subjected the court’s image to
distrust. For this, the Court finds respondent guilty of simple misconduct.
Misconduct
is defined as a transgression of some established or definite rule of action;
more particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the public officer.[18]
Respondent may not be held guilty of dishonesty because she issued receipts
which accurately reflect the amount that should have been charged for the
affidavits she prepared. She is only guilty of simple misconduct for her
failure to return the change of complainant Felo Jane
and of subsequently appropriating the same for her personal use.
Section
52(B)(2) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
classifies simple misconduct as a less grave offense punishable by suspension
of one month and one day to six months for the first offense, and dismissal for
the second offense.
However, in
Balajadia v. Gatchalian[19],
a court stenographer found guilty of simple misconduct was fined in the amount
of P3,000.00 after the court took into consideration the fact that it
was her first administrative offense. In addition, the Court in previous cases,
found it proper to mitigate the administrative penalties imposed upon erring
judicial officers and employees for humanitarian reasons coupled with other
extenuating circumstances.[20]
The court has also ruled that where a penalty less punitive would suffice,
whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a
consequence so severe.[21]
It is not only for the law’s concern for the workingman; there is, in addition,
his family to consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows on
those dependent on wage earners.
Thus, for
humanitarian reasons, considering that respondent has five children and a
husband who is not gainfully employed; that she is on continuous medication
after having undergone operation and chemotherapy for breast cancer; that it
appears on the records at hand that this is respondent’s first offense; that
she admitted her transgression during the investigation and that she appears
contrite, as observed by the Investigating Judge, the Court finds it fit to impose
the penalty of fine in the amount of P2,000.00.
The Court
takes note of the following testimony of respondent during her investigation:
Q Mrs. Margate, during her examination,
said that you charged her P200.00 for the two affidavits when she asked
you how much the affidavits would cost. Is this true?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is it also true when she said that she
handed to you the P200.00 after both affidavits were typed already?
A Yes, sir.
Q She said you issued two (2) receipts –
one for P24.00 and the other for P1.00. What can you say about
this?
A That is right, sir. The P24.00
covered by O.R. 17232702 was for the JDF and the P1.00 covered by O.R.
17232652 was for the general fund.
Q How come you did not give the change of
P175.00 when what you officially received was only P25.00?
A When Judge Aventurado arrived, sir, I
handed to him the P200.00. He instructed me to issue a receipt for one
affidavit in the amount of P25.00. And this P25.00 is covered by
both receipts when you total the P24.00 and the P1.00.
Q Did you not ask the judge for the
change of P175.00 to be returned to complainants?
A I did not do that anymore, sir because
it has been customary for us in that court to charge P100.00 for every
affidavit that we prepare.
Q When you say “us”, who are you referring to?
A Except for the process server, sir, who
is always out of the office, all of us who are in that office charge P100.00
for every affidavit we prepare.
Q Coming to this transaction, what
happened to the P175.00 that was the excess after the charges for the
affidavits?
A Judge Aventurado kept the P100.00
and he handed to me the P75.00 because he pity me because I always need
medicine for my breast cancer.[22]
The Court
cannot simply brush aside respondent’s abovementioned allegations of wrongdoing
in the court where she serves, especially with respect to her claim that Judge
Aventurado pocketed half of the amount paid by complainant Felo
Jane for the affidavits which respondent prepared.
The Court
also takes note of the findings of the Investigating Judge that what has been
notarized by Judge Aventurado are an affidavit of lost birth certificate and an
affidavit of two disinterested persons, both of which are sought to be secured
for the purpose of enabling the mother of the complainants to avail of
PHILHEALTH benefits. These are private documents which bear no direct relation
with the exercise of Judge Aventurado’s official functions and duties.
Under
Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90, municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial
court judges are empowered to perform the functions of notaries public ex-officio,
subject to certain qualifications. The text of said Circular reads:
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges are empowered to perform the functions of notaries public ex-officio under Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended (otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948) and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code. But the Court hereby lays down the following qualifications on the scope of this power:
MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex-officio in the notarization of documents connected only with the exercise of their official functions and duties [Borre v. Moya, Adm. Matter No. 1765-CFI, October 17, 1980, 100 SCRA 314; Penera v. Dalocanog, Adm. Matter No. 2113-MJ, April 22, 1981, 104 SCRA 193.] They may not, as notaries public ex-officio, undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and other acts of conveyances which bear no direct relation to the performance of their functions as judges. The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only enjoins judges to regulate their extra-judicial activities in order to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties, but also prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of law (Canon 5 and Rule 5.07).
However, the Court, taking judicial notice of the fact
that there are still municipalities which have neither lawyers nor notaries
public, rules that MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits
with no lawyers or notaries public may, in the capacity as notaries public ex-officio,
perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public, provided
that: (1) all notarial fees be charged for the account of the Government and
turned over to the municipal treasurer (Lapeña, Jr. v. Marcos, Adm.
Matter No. 1969-MJ, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 572); and, (2) certification be
made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary
public in such municipality or circuit.
In the
present case, respondent alleged in her Comment that there are no law offices
or notaries public in
Under
Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has
administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. Such
power of supervision carries with it the authority to order the conduct of
investigation and impose sanction upon court officers and employees found to
have committed an administrative offense. In consonance with this power, the
Court directs the OCA to conduct an investigation to determine the possible
liability of Judge Aventurado in the notarization of the abovementioned
affidavits and his alleged appropriation for personal use of part of the sum
paid for such affidavits; as well as on
the possible liability of other personnel of the MTC, Asuncion, Davao del Norte in preparing affidavits not germane to
their official functions and duties.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Annalee C. Navarro is found GUILTY of
SIMPLE MISCONDUCT. She is FINED
in the amount of P2,000.00 with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act of misconduct would be dealt with more
severely.
The Court
Administrator is DIRECTED to conduct an investigation on the possible
culpability of Judge Justino G. Aventurado and personnel in the collection of
excessive fees for affidavits prepared while he was the presiding Judge of MTC,
Asuncion, Davao del Norte; and to
initiate the proper charges against the Judge and the MTC personnel, if
warranted, under a separate docket number.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 6.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Volume I, pp. 206-207.
[15] Office of the Court Administrator
v. Duque, A.M. No. P-05-1958,
[16]
[17]
[18] Miñoso v. Pamulag, A.M. No.
P-05-2067,
[19] A.M. No. P-02-1658,
[20] In Re: Delayed Remittance of
Collections of Teresita Lydia R. Odtuhan, OIC, RTC, Br. 117, Pasay City,
445 Phil. 220, 226-227 (2003); Tan v.
Paredes, A.M. No. P-04-1789 and A.M. No. RTJ-04-1841,
[21] Re: Habitual Absenteeism of Mr.
Fernando P. Pascual, A.M. No. 2005-16-SC,
[22] TSN,