first DIVISION
ZENAIDA D. JUNTO, A.M. No. P-04-1817
Complainant, (Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1748-P)
Present:
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- v e r s u s - CORONA,
AZCUNA and
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ.
ALICIA
BRAVO-FABIA, former
Clerk
of Court VI, Regional Trial
Court,
Office of the Clerk of Court,
Dagupan
City, Pangasinan,
Respondent. Promulgated:
December 19, 2007
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CORONA,
J.:
In a
letter-complaint dated April 28, 2003, complainant Zenaida D. Junto charged
respondent Atty. Alicia Bravo-Fabia, former clerk of court VI of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Office of the Clerk of Court, Dagupan City, Pangasinan,[1] with
discourtesy, conduct unbecoming of a clerk of court and/or conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service.[2]
Complainant's
house and lot located at Barangay Tebag, Mangaldan, Pangasinan was adjacent to
respondent's property where bamboo groves were planted. Their properties were separated by a 1½-meter
feeder road.[3] Complainant was new in the area while the
respondent had been the owner of the property for 30 years. Noticing that some of the bamboos were
already protruding and encroaching on the feeder road and touching her house's
roof gutter, she requested the barangay captain, municipal engineer and mayor
to have the encroaching bamboos cut.[4]
On
November 5, 2001, complainant directed her laborers to cut the protruding
bamboos and burn them. She alleged in
her complaint that upon learning of this, respondent who was extremely angry
entered her property at around 6:00 p.m. and shouted at her and her laborers. She yelled and cursed “Mga tarantado kayo, putang ina ninyo, bakit
pinakikialaman ninyo ang hindi sa inyo?!”
(“You bastards, why are you meddling with what is not yours?!”) She threatened that she would ask her friends
from the New People's Army to “liquidate” complainant if the latter would not
stop cutting her bamboos. She also demanded from complainant P1.5
million in damages.[5]
The
following day, on November 6, 2001, respondent returned and again warned the
complainant not to cut the bamboos since she was not the owner. From then on, whenever she saw the
complainant or her house, she would utter or shout insulting words such as “kabit”
(“mistress”) to refer to the complainant.[6]
It
appears that it was only after the incident, in a letter dated November 14,
2001, that complainant asked permission from the Community Environment and
Natural Resources Officer (CENRO), Region I to cut the bamboos.[7] In a letter dated December 5, 2001, the CENRO
responded that she should coordinate with the barangay officials.[8]
Respondent
denied the accusations of complainant.
She alleged that it was only on November 7, 2001 or after her birthday
party that her husband, Daniel R. Fabia, informed her about the cutting and burning
of the bamboos. According to her, at the
time mentioned in the complaint, she was in several stores to buy items she
needed for her birthday celebration.[9]
Respondent
asserted that their tenant-overseer, Juan Antenor, reported to her husband at
around 7:00 p.m. of November 5, 2001 that some of their bamboos had been cut
and burned by the laborers of complainant.
The next day, on November 6, 2001, her husband reported the matter to the
police and the barangay officials. During their “confrontation” in the
barangay, they failed to reach a settlement.[10]
Thereafter,
respondent's husband filed a criminal case of malicious mischief against
complainant. This was dismissed by the provincial prosecutor's office but he
asked the Department of Justice to review the dismissal.[11] On
December 12, 2001, she and her husband filed a case for damages against the
complainant[12]
in the Municipal Trial Court, Mangaldan, Pangasinan. Respondent claimed that
this administrative case was filed purely for harassment and malicious motives
especially since complainant knew she was about to retire.[13]
Complainant
furthermore averred that during a hearing of the civil case in the court of
Judge Genoveva Maramba, respondent shouted at her and insultingly pointed a
finger at her face, uttering “sayang ang pagmumukha mo” (“your face will
become a waste”).[14]
In a
resolution of this Court dated May 19, 2004, the complaint was referred to
Judge Silverio Q. Castillo, executive judge of RTC, Dagupan City, Pangasinan
for investigation, report and recommendation.
A full-blown trial followed. The
complainant testified and also presented Renato de Guzman as witness. The
latter had been hired by complainant to fumigate her mango trees. He was
supposedly present when respondent stormed the house of complainant on November
5, 2001. He corroborated complainant's testimony.
For her
defense, respondent testified on her own behalf. She also presented as witnesses her husband,
their tenant-overseer and Judge Maramba.
The first two corroborated her story that she learned about the incident
only on November 7, 2001; Judge Maramba testified that no finger-pointing
incident ever happened in her courtroom.[15]
Judge
Castillo submitted his resolution/recommendation dated November 22, 2004 with
the following findings and recommendation:
The Court believes that, indeed, the
respondent went to Tebag, Mangaldan, Pangasinan and uttered those remarks on
November 5, 2001 against the complainant in her
fit of anger upon discovering that the bamboo grooves which her husband
planted and which they nurtured with their marriage were cut and burned without
her and her husband’s knowledge and permission.
Even if the respondent first went to
the market in Dagupan City after office hours, by strategic location and
distance, it is not impossible for her to [have] dropped by the place of the
incident where she saw the cut and burned bamboos.
It is not likewise impossible for
her to be mad and furious with what she discovered and consequently utter the
remarks “Mga tarantado kayo, putang ina [ninyo], bakit pinakikialaman
[ninyo] ang hindi sa inyo?!” and the threat that she will have them
liquidated by the NPAs.
However, this Court believes that
these remarks are made in a fit of anger and product of uncontrolled rage and
passionate outburst of emotions which is not actuated by [ill will] or
conscious desire to do any wrong. It is
neither obstinate, premeditated nor intentional.
The act of the respondent, suffice
to say, does not [concern] the administration of justice which is prejudicial
to the interests of the service of the respondent as a government employee nor
it is related to the discharge of the respondent’s duties and obligations as a
Clerk of Court.
At that precise moment, she is just
a plain land owner. Her actuations are
just the natural reactions of a property owner whose rights have been
transgressed. Right at the moment that
the respondent saw what happened to her bamboo grooves and eventually uttered
those remarks, she was just reacting as a property owner and not as the public
officer or a government employee. The
remarks she made have nothing to do with the respondent being a Clerk of Court.
For administrative liability to
attach, it must be proven that the respondent was moved by bad faith,
dishonesty, hatred or some other like motive.
Anger cannot be equated with the above enumerations and cannot be
considered as tantamount to the like as to make the respondent administratively
liable because the above enumerations connote premeditation.
Anger is just a passionate outburst,
in other words.
There was no furtive design or ill
will for ulterior motives operating in the mind of the respondent at that
time. There was no deliberate intent on
the part of the respondent to do wrong or [cause] damage but merely to
vindicate her right. There was no
criminal intent on her part.
WHEREFORE, in view of the above, the
administrative case leveled against the respondent Atty. Alicia Bravo Fabia is
hereby respectfully recommended DISMISSED.
It is, however, recommended that the
same respondent be admonished not to repeat the said outburst. But in as much as she has already retired
from the service effective November 7, 2003, this recommendation has now become
moot and academic.
SO ORDERED.[16]
The
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its memorandum dated June 2, 2005,
agreed with the findings of the investigating judge. But it concluded that respondent was guilty
of conduct unbecoming of a public official.
It disagreed that no penalty could be imposed on respondent after she
retired. It recommended that she be
fined P1,000:[17]
After careful evaluation
of the records of the case[,] the undersigned concurs with the investigation
report of Investigating Judge Silverio Q. Castillo. However[,] we differ from
the submission that a penalty can no longer be imposed upon respondent as she
had already retired from the service. The retirement of [respondent] from the
service does not militate against the imposition of [the] proper penalty for
acts committed by the latter during her incumbency. x x x
Considering that
respondent was found guilty of acts unbecoming of a public official[,] an
administrative penalty can still be imposed if only to maintain the [people's]
faith [in] the judiciary and demonstrate that this Court will not tolerate any
act which falls short of the norms of public accountability.
WHEREFORE, premises
considered[,] the undersigned respectfully recommends that [respondent], former
Clerk of Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, [RTC], Dagupan City be FINED in
the amount of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) for acts unbecoming of a
public official.[18]
The
findings and evaluation of the OCA are well-taken.
Although
every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a
greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual than
in the judiciary.[19] The
conduct required of court personnel must always be beyond reproach and
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. The image of a court of
justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the
men and women who work therein, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel.[20]
In administrative proceedings, only
substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required.[21] In
their pleadings and during the trial, the complainant and respondent gave
conflicting versions of what happened. Judge Castillo found that on November 5,
2001, respondent dropped by complainant's property and in her anger uttered the
offending words. We find his findings of facts to be a result of a fair and
dispassionate analysis of the testimonies of the parties as well as their
respective witnesses. We therefore
affirm the same.[22]
We agree
with the OCA that the facts, as found by Judge Castillo, constituted acts
unbecoming of a public official which respondent should be penalized for. We disagree with Judge Castillo's declaration
that respondent should not be held liable for her passionate outburst since she
was just reacting as a property owner and not as a public officer. The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the
conduct of court personnel must be free from any whiff of impropriety, not only
with respect to their duties in the judicial branch but also to their
behavior outside the court as private individuals.[23] It is in this way that the integrity and the
good name of the courts of justice can be preserved.[24] A clerk of court, in particular, as an
essential and ranking officer of our judicial system, who performs delicate
administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper administration of
justice, must be free from any taint of impropriety.[25]
Respondent's retirement from office did not
render the recommended penalty moot and academic. It did not free her from
liability. Complainant filed this case
on August 29, 2003, before respondent retired
from office. As
such, the Court retains the authority to resolve the
administrative complaint against her. Cessation from office because of
retirement does not per se justify the dismissal of the administrative
complaint filed against a judicial employee while still in the service.[26] The fine
imposed can be deducted from the proceeds of her retirement benefits. Given that it was her first offense, a fine
in the amount of P1,000 is reasonable.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Alicia Bravo-Fabia, former
clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court,
Dagupan City, Pangasinan is hereby found GUILTY of conduct unbecoming of
a public official. She is ordered to pay
a FINE of P1,000, to be deducted from her retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
[1] Respondent compulsorily retired on November 7, 2003.
[2] The Office of the Court Administrator received the complaint on August 29, 2003; rollo, p. 1.
[3] The parties referred to it as the callejon.
[4] Rollo, p. 1.
[5] Id., p. 48.
[6] Resolution/Recommendation of Judge Silverio Q. Castillo, p. 3; id., p. 2.
[7] Id., p. 4.
[8] Id., p. 5.
[9] Resolution/Recommendation of Judge Silverio Q. Castillo, p. 4.
[10] Id., p. 2.
[11] As of the time respondent filed her rejoinder in January 13, 2004. The provincial prosecutor ruled that the complainant's liability was merely civil; rollo, p. 40.
[12] Included as defendants were complainant's co-owner of the property, Mariano Chan, and her laborers, Angel Lomibao and Romulo Aquino. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 1677; id., p. 15.
[13] Id., pp. 41-42.
[14] Resolution/Recommendation of Judge Silverio Q. Castillo, p. 3.
[15] Id., p. 4.
[16] Id., pp. 5-7.
[17] OCA's memorandum dated June 2, 2005, p. 5.
[18] Id.
[19] Salazar v. Limeta, A.M. No. P-04-1908, 16 August 2005, 467 SCRA 27, 32, citing Rabe v. Flores, A.M. No. P-97-1247, 14 May 1997, 272 SCRA 415.
[20] Gabriel v. Atty. Abella, 450 Phil. 14, 21(2003), citations omitted.
[21] Re: (1) Lost Checks Issued to the Late Roderick Roy P. Melliza and (2) Dropping from the Rolls of Ms. Esther T. Andres, A.M. No. 2005-26-SC, 22 November 2006, 507 SCRA 478, 496, citing Inocencio D. Ebero and Juanito D. Ebero v. Makati City Sheriffs Raul T. Camposano and Bayani T. Acle, A.M. No. P-04-1792, 12 March 2004, 425 SCRA 420; Francisco Reyno v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 148105, 22 July 2004, 434 SCRA 660.
[22] Resngit-Marquez v Llamas, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-02-1708, 23 July 2002, 385 SCRA 6, 21.
[23] Burgos v. Aquino, 319 Phil. 622, 628 (1995), citing Imbing v. Tiongson, A.M. No. MTJ-91-595, 7 February 1994, 229 SCRA 690.
[24] Salazar v. Limeta, supra note 19 at 33, citing Albano-Madrid v. Apolonio, A.M. No. P-01-1517, 7 February 2003, 397 SCRA 120.
[25] Id.
[26] Rivera v. Mirasol, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1885, 14 July 2004, 434 SCRA 315, 321, citing Cabarloc v. Cabusora, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1256, 15 December 2000, 348 SCRA 217, 226.