SECOND
DIVISION
|
ROLLY
PENTECOSTES,
Complainant, - versus - ATTY. HERMENEGILDO MARASIGAN,
Clerk of Court VI, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court,
Kabacan,
Respondent. |
A.M. No.
P-07-2337 [Formerly A.M.
OCA IPI No. 04-2060-P] Present: QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA, and
VELASCO,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: August 3, 2007 |
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Atty. Hermenegildo
Marasigan (respondent), Clerk of Court VI of the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabacan,
The administrative case against
respondent stemmed from a sworn affidavit-complaint[1]
filed on November 11, 2004 by Rolly Pentecostes (Pentecostes), the owner of a
Kawasaki motorcycle, which was recovered by members of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) of M’lang,
On the order of the trial court, the
chief of police of M’lang,
After the conduct of hearings to
determine the true owner of the motorcycle, the trial court issued an Order[2] of
Pentecostes immediately asked respondent to
release the motorcycle to him.
Respondent, however, told him to wait and come back repeatedly from 2001
up to the filing of the complaint.
In his Comment[3]
filed on
After the motorcycle was delivered to
him by the M’lang chief of police on
He thereafter instructed Pedroso to bring the motorcycle to the Kabacan police
station for which he (respondent) prepared a receipt.
He and Pedroso visited and inspected
the motorcycle every time a hearing on the criminal case was conducted. When the court finally ordered the release of
the motorcycle to Pentecostes on
From that time on until 2003,
Pentecostes harassed him, demanding that he be responsible for reconditioning
the vehicle. During the latter part of 2004, upon the advice of the executive
judge, he accompanied Pentecostes to the Kabacan police station only to
discover that the motorcycle was missing.
As no explanation could be offered by
then Kabacan police chief Nestor Bastareche for the loss, he prepared a
letter-complaint requesting for assistance in the recovery of the motorcycle
and for the conduct of an investigation.
Pentecostes refused to sign the letter,
however.
He later discovered that the turnover
receipt attached to the record of the criminal case and the page of the blotter
where the turnover was recorded were missing. Hence, he submitted the sworn statements of
Pedroso[4]
and SPO4 Alex Ocampo[5]
who confirmed the transfer of the vehicle from his custody to that of the
Kabacan chief of police.
Belying
respondent’s averments, Pentecostes, in his “Rejoinder,”[6] contended
as follows:
The vehicle was in good running
condition when it was delivered to respondent by police operatives[7] of
M’lang.
Respondent’s act of passing the blame
to the PNP of Kabacan was a clear case of hand
washing as the records showed that respondent was responsible for the
safekeeping of the motorcycle. It was for
this reason that he (Pentecostes) refused to sign the
letter to the chief of police of Kabacan protesting the loss. Moreover, the police blotter of PNP Kabacan
has no entry or record of the alleged turn over.
By Resolution of
Then Executive Judge Francisco G.
Rabang, Jr. of the RTC, Kabacan, North Cotabato
submitted on January 16, 2006 his findings and recommendation for the
dismissal of the administrative complaint against respondent.[9]
In his report, Judge Rabang noted that Pentecostes denied any knowledge about
the turnover of the motorcycle to the PNP of Kabacan.
On the evidence for the defense, the
investigating judge found that the motorcycle was delivered by the PNP of
M’lang,
To Judge Rabang, what remained an
issue was the actual physical condition of the motorcycle when it was turned
over to the PNP of Kabacan. The judge
noted that there was no proof of Pentecostes’ claim
that the vehicle was “cannibalized” from the time it was under respondent’s
custody until its transfer to the PNP of Kabacan.
In light of the peace and order
situation in Kabacan in the late 1990s and in the early part of 2000 and the
absence of a suitable courthouse then, Judge Rabang believed that respondent
had made a wise decision in turning over the custody of the vehicle to the PNP
of Kabacan.
To Judge Rabang’s
report and recommendation, Pentecostes filed a Motion
for Reconsideration[10] in
which he assailed the conclusion that the motorcycle was no longer roadworthy
and was already “cannibalized” when it was delivered to the office of the clerk
of court from the M’lang police station.
Moreover, Pentecostes maintained that
the alleged turnover of the motorcycle to the police station of Kabacan was
irrelevant because the proper custodian of the vehicle was respondent who should
be held responsible for its eventual loss.
The Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) found the investigating judge’s recommendation to be sufficiently
supported by the evidence.[11]
The OCA thus concurred with Judge
Rabang’s recommendation for the dismissal of the complaint against respondent, subject
to certain qualifications with respect to the physical condition of the vehicle
upon its delivery to respondent and the latter’s lack of authority for the turn
over of the vehicle to the PNP of Kabacan.
While the investigating judge found
no evidence to show the actual condition of the motorcycle at the time it was
turned over to respondent, the OCA observed that the evidence presented during
the investigation supported a finding that the vehicle had missing parts when it
was delivered to respondent.
From the testimony of Pentecostes’ witness SPO2 Servando
Guadalupe, the OCA noted, the motorcycle was loaded into a service vehicle for
delivery to respondent. This fact,
according to the OCA, could only mean that the vehicle could not run by itself.
Although the OCA agreed with the
investigating judge that the evidence sufficiently proved that the vehicle was
turned over to the PNP of Kabacan where it got lost, it noted that respondent
failed to ask prior authority from the trial court to transfer its custody. Only when respondent was having problems with
Pentecostes did he bring the matter to the attention of the executive judge,
the OCA added.
Accordingly, the OCA recommended that
respondent be reminded to secure prior authority from the court before evidence
is turned over to any authorized government office or agency and that he be
warned to be more careful to prevent any similar incident from arising in the
future.
The finding of the OCA insofar as
respondent’s lack of authority to transfer the motorcycle is well taken, on
account of which respondent is administratively liable for simple
misconduct.
It is the duty of the clerk of court
to keep safely all records, papers, files, exhibits and public property committed
to his charge.[12] Section D (4), Chapter VII of the 1991 Manual
For Clerks of Court (now Section E[2], paragraph
2.2.3, Chapter VI of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court) provides:
All exhibits used as evidence and turned over to the court and before the case/s involving such evidence shall have been terminated shall be under the custody and safekeeping of the Clerk of Court.
Similarly, Section 7 of Rule 136 of
the Rules of Court, provides:
SEC. 7. Safekeeping of property. — The clerk shall safely keep all record, papers, files, exhibits and public property committed to his charge, including the library of the court, and the seals and furniture belonging to his office.
From the above provisions, it is
clear that as clerk of court of the RTC, Kabacan, respondent was charged with
the custody and safekeeping of Pentecostes’ motorcycle,
and to keep it until the termination of the case, barring circumstances that
would justify its safekeeping elsewhere, and upon the prior authority of the
trial court.
No explanation was offered by
respondent, however, for turning over the motorcycle. But whatever the reason was, respondent was
mandated to secure prior consultations with and approval of the trial
court.
Moreover disconcerting is the fact that
the acknowledgment receipt evidencing the turnover of the motorcycle from the
trial court to the Kabacan police station was lost from the records of Criminal
Case No. 1010,[13] with
nary a lead as to who was responsible for it.
This circumstance is viewed with disfavor as it reflects badly on the
safekeeping of court records, a duty entrusted to respondent as clerk of court.
With regard to the condition of the
vehicle upon its delivery to respondent, the evidence indicates that it was still
serviceable when it was delivered by the M’lang
police to respondent and at the time it was turned over by respondent to the
Kabacan police station. The Joint Affidavit[14]
of SPO2 Guadalupe and Police Inspector Romeo Banaybanay categorically stated
that the motorcycle was in “good running condition” when they delivered it to
respondent. Later during his testimony,
Guadalupe narrated that he was the “the driver of the service jeep while Chief
Banaybanay was on board the motorcycle” when the vehicle was turned over to respondent
on
Even respondent’s following testimony
that:
“x x x when x x x [he] received the motorcycle for safekeeping, he immediately delivered together with Alex Pedroso [sic] because it could be noted that respondent do[es] not know how to drive a motorcycle, I requested x x x Alex Pedroso to accompany me and deliver [it] to [the] chief of police of Kabacan”[16] (Italics supplied)
suggests that the vehicle was in running condition
when respondent took and subsequently transferred its custody to the Kabacan
police.
This
Court has repeatedly emphasized that clerks of court are essential and ranking
officers of our judicial system who perform delicate functions vital to the
prompt and proper administration of justice.[17] Their duties include the efficient recording,
filing and management of court records and, as previously pointed out, the
safekeeping of exhibits and public property committed to their charge.
Clearly, they play a key role in the
complement of the court and cannot be permitted to slacken on their jobs under
one pretext or another.[18]
They cannot err without affecting the integrity of the court or the efficient
administration of justice.[19]
The same responsibility bears upon
all court personnel in view of their exalted positions as keepers of public
faith.[20] The exacting standards of ethics and
morality imposed upon court employees are reflective of the premium placed on
the image of the court of justice, and that image is necessarily mirrored in
the conduct, official or otherwise, of court personnel.[21] It becomes the imperative and sacred duty of
everyone charged with the dispensation of justice, from the judge to the
lowliest clerk, to maintain the courts’ good name and standing as true temples
of justice.[22]
By transferring Pentecostes’
motorcycle without authority, respondent failed to give premium to his avowed
duty of keeping it under his care and possession. He must, therefore, suffer the consequences
of his act or omission, which is akin to misconduct.
Misconduct is a transgression of some
established or definite rule of action; more particularly, it is an unlawful
behavior by the public officer.[23] The misconduct is grave if it involves any of
the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to
disregard established rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence.
Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple, as in this case.
The Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series
of 1999) classifies simple misconduct as a less grave offense, punishable by
suspension of One Month and One Day to Six Months. Considering that this is respondent’s
first offense and no taint of bad faith has been shown by his actuations, a
15-day suspension without pay is deemed appropriate.
WHEREFORE,
respondent, Clerk of Court Hermenegildo Marasigan, is
found guilty of Simple Misconduct. He is SUSPENDED
for 15 days without pay, with a stern WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more
severely.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice -* |
|
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-3.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] SPO2 Servando V. Guadalupe and P/Insp.
Romeo A. Banaybanay. Their Joint Affidavit was attached as Annex “A” to
the Rejoinder.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Office of the Court
Administrator v. Sheriff IV Gabe, 389 Phil. 685, 696 (2000); Cruz v. Tantay, 364 Phil. 602, 605
(1999); Cañete v. Rabosa, 344 Phil.
9, 11 (1997).
[13] Rollo, pp. 82-83;
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated
[14]
[15] TSN,
[16]
[17] Vilar v. Angeles, A.M. No. P-06-2276,
[18] Ramirez v. Racho, supra; Lloveras v. Sanchez, A.M. No. P-93-817,
[19]
[20] Office of the Court
Administrator v. Sheriff IV Gabe, supra note 12 at 698.
[21] Vilar v. Angeles,
supra note 17; Legaspi, Jr. v. Montero III, A.M. No. P-05-1986,
[22] Re: Withholding of all the Salaries and
Allowances of Mr. Datu Ashary M. Alauya, Clerk of Court, 4th Shari’a
District Court, Marawi City, A.M. No. 02-4-03-SDC, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 202, 210; Biag v. Gubatanga, 376 Phil. 870, 876
(1999).
[23] Miñoso v. Pamulag, A.M. No. P-05-2067,