Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
BERNADETTE CANLAS- |
|
A.M. No. P-07-2397 |
|
BARTOLOME, |
|
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-2043-P) |
|
Complainant, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
PUNO, C. J. QUISUMBING, |
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., |
|
- versus - |
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, |
|
|
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, Jr., |
|
|
|
NACHURA, and |
|
MARITES R. MANIO, |
|
REYES, JJ. |
|
Interpreter, Regional Trial Court, |
|
|
|
Branch 4, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
December
4, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
PER
CURIAM:
In
an Affidavit[1]
dated
Complainant
avers that: she is the sister of Bety Canlas-Marcelo, a petitioner in SP No. 1962 entitled In
the Matter of Correction of Entries of Marriage of Bety
Canlas Marcelo in the Civil Register: Bety Canlas Marcelo, Petitioner
vs. the Civil Registrar of Solana, Cagayan,
Respondent which was filed on August 8, 2003, and raffled to Branch 1 of
the same RTC; when Bety left the country, complainant
contacted respondent, a former officemate and friend of Bety,
to follow up the status of the case; on October 8, 2003, respondent told
complainant over the phone that the case had already been dismissed but
respondent could still do something about it, all that she needed was P15,000.00
for filing fee, publication, attorney's fees and bribe (lagay)
for the judge; that afternoon, complainant gave respondent P10,000.00 as
partial payment and upon request of complainant, respondent issued a receipt therefor; on December 15, 2003, complainant met with
respondent again and the latter handed a resolution granting Bety's petition in exchange for the balance of P5,000.00
which complainant gave; respondent also said that a certificate of finality would
only be issued upon the lapse of a certain number of days; on December 20,
2003, respondent called her and mentioned that the certificate of finality was
ready but if complainant wanted to expedite the release thereof she should give
additional money; complainant then gave
respondent P500.00; complainant followed up the certificate of finality
several times, to no avail; on April 14, 2004, complainant went to Branch 4 and
it was then that she found out that no petition in the name of her sister was
filed in said branch; upon further inquiry she found out that her sister's case
was raffled to Branch 1 and had already been dismissed on September 12, 2003;
on April 15, 2004, complainant went back to Branch 4 and presented the
resolution which respondent gave her; it was discovered that SP No. 2025
which was written on the resolution referred to an entirely different case
which was resolved in Branch 5, and that no case of Bety
Canlas-Marcelo was ever decided in Branch 4, neither
was the case re-filed, thus, no certificate of finality may be issued to
complainant.[2]
Attached
to said Affidavit was a handwritten note dated October 8, 2003 signed by
respondent acknowledging the receipt from complainant of the amount of P10,000.00
for attorney's fees and filing fees for a petition for the correction of the name
of Bety Canlas;[3]
a copy of the resolution respondent gave complainant on December 15, 2003 with
case number Spl. Proc. No. 2025 entitled In Re:
Petition for the Correction of Entries of Marriage of Betty C. Marcelo from
Betty to Bety and the Year of Birth from 1959 to 1957
with a signature of Judge Lyliha Abella-Aquino
thereon;[4]
and copies of the petition and court order of Spl.
Proc. No. 2025, showing that said case number actually pertained to another
case, with Lormie
Tapulao Raful as
petitioner, raffled to Branch 5.[5]
In
a letter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated April 23, 2004,
Judge Lyliha L. Abella-Aquino,
Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 4, Tuguegarao informed
the Court that on April 19, 2004, complainant showed her a copy of the
resolution which respondent gave to complainant on December 15, 2003; that her
(Judge Aquino's) signature appearing thereon was
forged and its case number, Spl. Proc. Case No. 2025,
pertained to another case; that she confronted respondent in the afternoon of
April 19, 2004 and the latter confessed that she was forced to prepare the
resolution and to forge Judge Aquino's signature
thereon because of family problems and because complainant was persistent in
following up the case; that respondent pleaded to be forgiven and promised not
to do it again. Judge Aquino then prayed for immediate action on the matter.[6]
The
OCA required respondent to submit her comment, first, through a 1st Indorsement dated
In
the Report dated
x x x It is respectfully recommended that respondent be
DIRECTED to file her comment within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days
from receipt and in case of failure, that her several cases be EVALUATED and if
it is found that she has engaged in a series of swindling cases, she should be
IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDED pending the investigation of these cases and that
complainants be ADVISED to file their complaints with the public prosecutor who
has jurisdiction over the cases.[9]
The report also noted
that:
x x x It appears from the records of the Legal Office that respondent also stands charged in four (4) other administrative complaints still pending adjudication. They are the following:
A.M. No. P-04-1893 - Willful refusal to pay a just debt[10]
A.M. No. 04-1924-P - Falsification, dishonesty and grave misconduct
A.M. No. 04-1957-P - Violation of R.A. No. 3019, falsification, grave misconduct and dishonesty
A.M. No. 04-1983-P - Violation of R.A. No. 3019, grave misconduct and dishonesty
As a matter of fact, the undersigned earlier evaluated A.M. No. 04-1983-P and it appears that the present respondent had also failed to file the Comment required of her by this Office. The said administrative charge against her also alleged the same modus operandi employed by her in the present case to swindle those who could get to believe that she had the ability to make good the promises she makes regarding their cases.[11]
In
a Resolution dated P1,000.00 and requiring her anew to comply with the directive
of the OCA to file comment on the complaint within ten days from notice.[13]
The September 4, 2006 Resolution was
returned unserved with the postal carrier's notation
RTS-party out of town; thus the Court, on January 31, 2007, resolved to
resend a copy of the resolution to respondent.[14] As the
In a Memorandum dated
September 4, 2007, OCA Chief of Office OAS Caridad A.
Pabello reported that in a Resolution dated November
17, 2004, the Court resolved to drop respondent from the Rolls for having been
absent without official leave since March 1, 2004 and declared her position
vacant.[16]
Although
respondent was dropped from the rolls per Resolution of the Court dated
Considering
the foregoing circumstances, a formal investigation is no longer
necessary.
In
the present case, complainant, in her Affidavit, narrated in detail how
respondent asked money from her, in the amount of P15,000.00,
to gain a favorable resolution of her sister's petition. Complainant presented a note signed by
respondent acknowledging receipt of P10,000.00
from complainant; and a copy of the resolution which complainant gave her,
which turned out to be spurious, as Judge Aquino
informed the Court that her signature appearing on said resolution was forged.
Respondent
was given ample opportunity to answer the charges against her. She did not comply with the OCA and the
Court's directives, however, and up to this time has not given her comment on
the complaint. Worse, she has moved out
of her last known residence without furnishing the Court her whereabouts,
clearly refusing to face the charges head-on, which acts are contrary to the
behavior of an innocent person faced with serious charges.[18]
The
Court finds respondent guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct and hereby
dismisses her from the service.
As
a public servant, respondent is expected to exhibit at all times the highest
sense of honesty and integrity and faithfully adhere to, hold inviolate, and
invigorate the principle that public office is a public trust.[19]
By soliciting money from complainant,
she committed an act of impropriety which immeasurably affects the honor and
dignity of the judiciary and the people's confidence in it.[20] She committed the ultimate betrayal of the
duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the judiciary by arrogating to herself judicial power which she does not possess, in order
to extort money from a party-litigant.[21]
Her act of forging the presiding judge's
signature also constitutes a blatant disregard for the values of integrity,
uprightness and honesty which are expected of all court personnel.[22]
The
Court has never wavered in exhorting all those in the judiciary to behave at
all times to promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.[23] At every opportunity, the Court has
emphasized that the conduct and behavior of all officials and employees of the
judiciary must at all times be characterized by strict propriety and decorum in
order to earn and maintain the respect of the people.[24]
As
the Court deplored in many cases, what brings the judiciary into disrepute are
often the actuations of a few erring court personnel peddling influence to
party-litigants, creating the impression that decisions can be bought and sold,
ultimately resulting in the disillusionment of the public.[25] Thus, whenever warranted by the gravity of
the offense, the supreme penalty of dismissal in an administrative case is
meted to erring personnel.[26] Indeed, the Court will never countenance such
conduct, act or omission on the part of all those in the judiciary as would
violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to
diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[27]
The Court has been resolute in its drive
to discipline and, if warranted, to remove from the service errant magistrates,
employees and even Justices of higher collegiate appellate courts for any
infraction that tends to give the Judiciary a bad name. The Court has been unflinching in imposing
discipline on errant personnel or in purging the ranks of those undeserving to
remain in the service,[28]
such as in this case.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Marites R. Manio
is hereby found guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct and is hereby DISMISSED
from the service, with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency
including government-owned or controlled corporations. Her retirement benefits, except accrued
leaves credits, are FORFEITED.
The
Office of the Court Administrator is directed to initiate the criminal
prosecution of respondent.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
(Official leave)
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice |
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice |
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 1, 4.
[2] Rollo, pp. 1-4.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Rollo, p. 28.
[8]
[9]
[10] Entitled Gopi
Adtani v. Marites Manio, decided on
[11] Rollo, pp. 30-31.
[12] Rollo, p. 32.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Commission on
Audit v. Pamposa,
A.M. No. P-07-2291,
[18]
[19] Nuez v. Cruz-Apao,
A.M. No. CA-05-18-P,
[20] Nuez v. Cruz-Apao, supra note 19, at 305.
[21] Fabian v. Galo, A.M. No.
P-96-1214,
[22] Pizarro v. Villegas, 398 Phil. 837 (2000).
[23] Fabian v. Galo, supra note 21, at 376.
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] Fabian v. Galo, supra note 21, at 379.
[28] Fabian v. Galo, id.