EN BANC
IN
RE: AFFIDAVIT OF FRANKIE
N.
CALABINES, A MEMBER OF
THE
CO-TERMINUS STAFF OF
JUSTICE
JOSEFINA GUEVARRA-
SALONGA,
RELATIVE TO SOME
ANOMALIES
RELATED TO
NO.
73287 “CANDY MAKER, INC.
v.
REPUBLIC OF THE
x
----------------------------------------------- x
FRANKIE N. CALABINES,
Utility Worker I-CT,
Complainant-Respondent, A.M.
No. 04-5-20-SC
- versus
- Present:
LUIS
N. GNILO, PUNO, C.J.,
Utility
Worker I, QUISUMBING,
Respondent. YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
DOLOR
M. CATOC, CARPIO,
- versus - CARPIO
MORALES,
CALLEJO,
SR.,*
FELICIANO
S. CALINGA, Utility AZCUNA,
Worker
I; EVELYN L. CAGUITLA, TINGA,
Court
Stenographer IV; LUIS N. CHICO-NAZARIO,
GNILO,
Utility Worker I; and ATTY. GARCIA,
EDWIN
MICHAEL P. MUSICO, VELASCO,
JR., and
Court
Attorney IV-CT, NACHURA,
JJ.
Respondents.
Promulgated:
March
14, 2007
X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
This involves an investigation of a
“case-fixing” incident in the Court of Appeals.
As
recounted by Investigating Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., in his Report and
Recommendation, dated
Sometime in
December 2003, a phone call from an unidentified woman was received by the
Office of Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga verifying the status of a pending civil case in which a decision had
supposedly already been rendered or about to
be promulgated. The case is entitled "Candy Maker, Inc. represented
by Ong Yee See vs. Republic of the Philippines," docketed as CA-G.R.
CV No. 73287 which is an appeal interposed by the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) from the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Taytay, Rizal granting the application for original
registration of a 10,975-square meter land filed by Candy Maker, Inc.
Said case was submitted for decision on May 5, 2003 and raffled off to Justice Salonga for study and report on May 14,
2003.
Apparently, the woman caller was
greatly surprised upon being told that the
rollo and records of CV-73287 were not yet even brought to the office of the
assigned ponente, Justice Guevara-Salonga. Not long thereafter, the
present controversy "exploded," so to speak. It turned out that
without any instruction or order from Justice Guevara-Salonga or her duly
authorized staff, the rollo and records of CV-73287 were "released"
by herein respondent Luis N. Gnilo, Utility Worker
I assigned at the Civil Cases Section of the Judicial Records Division (JRD) to herein complainant-respondent Frankie N.
Calabines, also a Utility Worker and member of the coterminous staff of
Justice Guevara-Salonga. Upon the prodding of Gnilo, Calabines signed an
authorization form (dated November 28, 2003) for the release of case records
and also affixed his signature in the official
logbook acknowledging that he received the rollo and records of CV-73287 as supposedly requested by the Office of
Justice Guevara-Salonga. Calabines neither actually received nor brought
the case records to their office. Gnilo gave
one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to Calabines and assured him that there will
be no problem. Gnilo made the following entry appearing on p. 52 of the official logbook of the Civil Cases Section,
which was also signed by Calabines:
“73287 CANDYMAKER, INC. v. R.P.
(signature) 1. Rollo
A week later,
Calabines went to see Gnilo saying that he was afraid of losing his job from what they did but Gnilo told him there
is no problem because he already erased the
logbook entry. True enough, the subject logbook entry was already erased using correction fluid, or what
is referred to in common parlance as
"snowpake." Upon visual examination, the case title
"erased" at first appears to
be similar to the preceding entry ("A.B. Cos vs. Hulog & Wife"
CV-73932) but a serious scrutiny of
the subject entry (viewed closely against the light) shows the legible original entry, "Candy Maker, Inc. vs. R.
P." Thus, the clandestine act was brought out in the daylight,
the two [2] perpetrators (Gnilo and
Calabines) exposed and the real motive for the unauthorized "release"
of the case records began to unfold in the subsequent events that
transpired showing the involvement or participation of other employees of this
Court.
In a letter dated
On January 7,
2004, Calabines executed his sworn affidavit-complaint ("Sinumpaang Salaysay") alleging that it was Gnilo who called
him on his cellular phone and induced him to sign the authorization form
already prepared by Gnilo himself for the
release of the rollo and original records of CV-73287 despite his (Calabines)
lack of permission or authority from Justice Guevara-Salonga to do so. The rollo and original records of CV-73287 were
not actually received by him. He
further stated that such authorization form is ordinarily and properly prepared
in their office and not in the Civil Cases Section. He explained that he was
prevailed upon by Gnilo who gave him P1,000.00 in exchange for the favor. Gnilo told him that his signature was needed so
Gnilo can collect money from the
party-litigant. He feared losing his job because of what they did but when he came to see Gnilo, the latter told him not to worry as he had already
erased the logbook entry.
Acting on the
complaint lodged by Calabines against Gnilo, Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia immediately
ordered a formal investigation and designated the undersigned as Investigating Justice who was directed to
submit a report and
recommendation within fifteen (15) working days from the completion of the investigation. The
official logbook of the Civil Cases Section containing
the subject entry, as well as the rollo and records of CV-73287 had earlier been turned over by the Office of Justice
Guevara-Salonga to the Office of the
Presiding Justice. On
In his
Comment, Gnilo denied having induced Calabines to sign an authorization form
for the release of the case records of CV-73287. He asserted that on
Finding a prima
facie case against both complainant Calabines and respondent Gnilo, the Investigating Justice summoned them
for a preliminary conference on
At the hearing on
In her "Sinumpaang
Salaysay” Catoc stated that she is an agent or broker of the land bought by Candy Maker, Inc. whose
application for original registration of said
property was granted by the MTC but the judgment was appealed by the OSG to this Court (CV-73287). In
the course of following-up the status
of the case, she came to know one (1) Evelyn who told her that if no one (1)
will help her, the case will drag on for five (5) to ten (10) years. Evelyn said that Atty. Kaye, Atty. Musico and
"Phil" are the ones who can help in expediting the resolution of the
appeal. In her desire to speed up the process so eventually she could also get her commission from the sale of the land
to Candy Maker, Inc., Catoc continued to make follow-ups with Evelyn.
During a meeting at Max's Restaurant at
Catoc alleged to have met with
Atty. Musico three (3) times. During their third meeting at Hacienda Grill
(located at Ma.
The identities
of those CA employees referred to in Catoc's affidavit-complaint were established as follows:
"Atty. Kaye" is "Atty. Rachel Minon Banares, researcher (Court Attorney)
member of the coterminous staff of Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., who is no longer connected with
this Court and was said
to have resigned last December 2003; Evelyn L. Caguitla holds the position of Court Stenographer IV
presently assigned at the office of Division Clerk of Court Atty. Miriam A. Bautista; Atty. Musico's
full name is Edwin Michael P. Musico (a.k.a.
"Neil"), researcher (Court Attorney IV) and member of the coterminous staff of Justice Bennie Adefuin A.
dela Cruz; and "Phil" is Feliciano
S. Calinga, Utility Worker I assigned at the Information & Statistical Data
Division. Except for Atty. Musico, the afore-named respondents are permanent
employees of this Court. As directed, respondents Caguitla, Calinga and Atty. Musico filed their respective comments
to the affidavit-complaint of Catoc.
In her Comment dated
Respondent Calinga likewise
vehemently denied the allegations of Catoc asserting
that in the seventeen (17) years he had been serving this Court, he has never been involved in any case or anomaly as
all the Justices he had previously
served could attest to his good character and work performance. He does not personally know Catoc and came to know
such name only upon receiving the letter from this Investigating
Justice. He knows his co-respondent Evelyn Caguitla who is also an employee of
this Court assigned at the office of DCC Atty. Miriam A. Bautista. During the
first week of November 2003, Evelyn came to
his office to verify the status of a certain case, the case title and number mentioned by her. He remembered that she mentioned
"Candymaker" and upon
checking their index card indicating that said case was "submitted for decision"
she relayed this information to Evelyn. After this initial query, Evelyn returned to their office several times requesting
him to at least talk to someone whom she said is her best friend. He refused
Evelyn's pleadings because he is busy and he has no time for things not
connected with his work, as he rushes to leave
after office hours to catch the service bus going home to Dasmarinas,
Atty. Musico
presented his own version as follows: Sometime in September 2003, Phil approached him and told him that
someone with a legal problem would like to
consult him (Atty. Musico). He then agreed to a meeting arranged by Phil
with a woman who turned out to be Catoc. Present during the said meeting at Hacienda Grill (at around
Finding a prima
facie case against the respondents Caguitla, Calinga and Atty. Musico, this Investigating Justice summoned the
parties, including the complainants and
respondent Gnilo, to a pre-hearing conference held on January 28 and
On
Investigating Justice
Villarama then stated his findings, thus:
After a thorough and conscientious
evaluation of the entire evidence on record
and the pleadings and admissions of the parties, this Investigating Justice finds
that respondents Caguitla, Calinga, Gnilo and Atty. Musico have actively conspired in defrauding complainant Catoc who,
through their acts and representations, was misled into believing that
they possessed such power or influence in facilitating not only the early
resolution of CV-73287 being followed-up by
her, but also in securing a decision on said case that is favorable to Candy Maker, Inc., the plaintiff-appellee in CV-73287.
Such conspiratorial acts perpetrated with abuse or misuse of the duties
of their office constitute Grave Misconduct which denigrate the dignity of this
Court as a temple of justice and seriously
impair the trust and confidence of the public it serves.
Plainly, the
factual scenario emerges as follows: Complainant Catoc, in the course of
following-up the status of CV-73287, became acquainted with Caguitla who was then detailed with
the Division office where said case was assigned. When finally the case was
submitted for decision and re-raffled off to another Justice for study and report in accordance with
the Internal Rules of this Court, Calinga
came into the picture, as Caguitla and Catoc sought his help for information as to the name of the Justice to whom
the case was assigned for study and
report. Upon ascertaining that CV-73287 was assigned to Justice Josefina
Guevara-Salonga, Caguitla introduced Catoc to Atty. Kaye whom she said could help her "facilitate"
resolution of the case. At this point, Caguitla obviously had represented to Catoc that the case she is following-up
could be "facilitated" as
otherwise Catoc would not have agreed to meet Atty. Kaye in the first place. When Catoc was handed a draft
"Report" (Exhibit "B-4") by Atty. Kaye in a meeting
at Max's Restaurant arranged by Caguitla, considering the supposed research efforts of Atty. Kaye as relayed
to Catoc, the latter's impression was
bolstered as to the real possibility of "fixing" the case. Exhibit "B-4" indeed contained a brief narration of facts but not the
main text of the disposition, only
up to that portion with the equivocal and vague statement, "The appeal is with/without merit." The underlying
message is quite plain enough: "Pay,
if you want the decision to be favorable." However, this initial
arrangement with Atty. Kaye did not
push through, as Caguitla told Catoc, "Hindi sya feel ni Atty.
Kaye." Subsequently, however, another option was presented by Caguitla who told Catoc she will be referred to another
lawyer who could help her - Atty. Musico together with Calinga. Hence,
Catoc accompanied by Caguitla met with Atty. Musico and Calinga at Hacienda
Grill where she was given Exhibit B-5 (Executive
Summary), another draft decision but this time a complete draft together with other pleadings in a folder labeled
with case number and title. Catoc in her testimony on direct examination
clarified her previous statement in her
affidavit-complaint, but remained categorical and positive in her assertion that
Caguitla, Calinga and Atty. Musico gave her a Draft Decision (Exhibit
"B-5") in exchange for a sum of
money.
"JUSTICE VILLARAMA:
Excuse me. When you made mention in your statement about a draft decision being handed to you by Fil
specifically under paragraph 15,
'inabot sa akin ni Fil...’ are you referring to the Executive Summary?
"A :
Transmittal po.
"Q : Hindi.
Ito, bumabalik ako dito, 'yong kanina, 'yong ipinakita ko sa 'yong draft decision, 'yong Executive
Summary?
"A : Hindi po, nagkamali po ako 'dyan sa draft decision. Ang nag-abot po sa akin 'nyan ay si Atty.
Musico at saka po si Evelyn
Caguitia.
"Q : Alin?
"A : 'Yun pong draft decision.
"Q : When you say draft decision
you are referring to?
"A : 'Yong folder po.
"Q : Ito, ang nagbigay sa iyo
nito?
"A : Sila pong tatlo pero ang nag-abot po sa akin 'nyan si Atty. Musico at saka si Evelyn. Magkakatabi po sila.
"Q : Now when you say therefore draft decision under your paragraph 15 you are referring to the Executive
Summary?
"A : Opo,
nagkamali po ako, Justice.
"Q : Hindi si Fil?
"A : Hindi po si Fil. Si Fil po 'yong
transmittal po ang inabot niya sa akin. Ang sabi pa niya na nasa itaas na raw ni Justice Salonga and ano namin, ang
rollo.
"Q : Pero
at that time, Fil was also there together with Atty. Musico and Evelyn Caguitla?
"A : Opo.
x x x
(Underscoring supplied)
On
cross-examination, Catoc testified that after giving P10,000.00 for the
"draft decision," she met Calinga for the second time during which
the latter gave her the
"transmittal (Exhibit "B-3"):
"JUSTICE VILLARAMA:
Question from the Investigating
Justice.
"Q : Ms. Catoc, I am showing to you paragraph 15, the last sentence thereat of your Sinumpaang
Salaysay, 'Kapalit ng naturang draft decision hiningan ako ni Fil ng pera.’
Do you remember that, he asked for money?
"A : Opo.
"Q : How much?
"A : Ten
thousand po.
"Q : What did you say?
"A : Sabi ko sabay-sabay na ng desisyon, sabay-sabay na kasi alam ko po na iba na ito, alam ko po
'yon. Kasi po bago ako nakipagkita kasi sa
kanila sa Hacienda grill tumawag po ako sa opisina
ni Justice Salonga. Tinanong ko po kung talagang naka-akyat na ang rollo
namin, Candy Maker. Hiningi po nila sa akin 'yong
case number eh hindi ko po matandaan so tin-text ko po kay Evelyn.
Agad-agad tin-text naman po sa akin ni Evelyn saka ko naman po sinabi sa taga
office ni Justice Salonga. Nalaman ko
po na wala pa so naki pag-meet din po ako sa kanila para makita ko po kung ano 'yong resibo na sinasabi
nila sa akin.
"Q : So you did not give ten thousand to Fil?
"A : Nagbigay
po ako kay Evelyn po.
"Q : How much?
"A : Ten thousand po.
"Q : By
reason of the demand of Fil from you?
"A :
'Yon pong una po kasi po may utang sa
akin si Evelyn tapos po 'yong ibinigay ko po
kay Atty. Musico binawi na po niya, isina-uli na po ni Atty. Musico. 'Yon po
ang ibinigay niya kay Fil.
"Q :
So did you give Fil for the second
time any money? Binigyan mo ba siya dahil humingi kamo siya rito eh.
"A : Hindi na nga po.
"Q : 'Hiningan
ako ni Fil ng pera.'
"A
: Sa two hundred thousand po
hiningan niya ako kapalit ng desisyon.
"Q : In effect, you did not give
him any centavo?
"A : Kay Evelyn po dumaan.
"Q : Kay Fil, wala?
"A : Wala po.
"Q : Kay Evelyn, how much did
you give Evelyn ?
"A : Ten thousand po.
"x x
x
"JUSTICE VILLARAMA:
"Q :
But there is no question that the
transmittal was given to you by Fil?
"A
: Binigay po sa akin ni Fil ang
transmittal. Siya po ang personal na nag-abot in the presence of Evelyn.
"Q : Where?
"A : Sa Hacienda Grill po.
"Q : What did
you do?
"A : Ano
po?
"Q : You
did something in return for the favor? May ginawa ka ba sa kanya dahil natuwa ka?
"A : Hindi po.
"Q : Wala
kang ginawa?
"A : Hindi na po ako nagbigay dahil alam ko na
pong niloloko nila
ako.
x x x“ [Underscoring supplied by Justice Villarama]
It is evident that the second
"draft decision" (Exhibit "B-5") contained in a folder appropriately labeled and complete with
copies of other pleadings such as appellant's
brief, was presented to Catoc purposely to convince her that the persons she is
dealing with actually have access to the case records and have such
requisite power or influence to ensure that resolution of the appeal will be
favorable to Candy Maker, Inc., the plaintiff-appellee in whose behalf Catoc
was actively following-up its status. On the
other hand, the "transmittal" (Exhibit "B-3") was presented to Catoc to serve as
"proof that what respondents had told her is true - that the rollo and original records of CV-73287 are already
forwarded to the Office of Justice
Josefina Guevara-Salonga. Calinga handed to Catoc the
"transmittal" last week of November 2003, while Calabines at the behest of Gnilo signed the said
"transmittal" on
The fraudulent
intent of respondents came to the fore only later when Catoc began to suspect she was being fooled and took it
upon herself to inquire with the Office of
Justice Guevara-Salonga on whether the rollo and original records of CV-73287
have in fact been already forwarded to that office for disposition. In
particular, respondents Caguitla and Calinga reacted furiously on the personal follow-up made by Catoc. Tragically
for respondents, their despicable
scheme will not remain secret for long as Catoc soon discovered that the
"transmittal11 given to her by Calinga was a fake one (1). And
when the anomalous "release" of
the case records of CV-73287 was finally exposed sometime in the month
of December 2003, respondents desperately moved to avert a full-blown investigation into the matter and cover-up their
misdeeds.
"ATTY. CRUZ:
"Q : After handing to you that transmittal what
happened, if you can recall?
A
: Binigay ko po sa inyo,
Attorney.
"Q : And then after that?
"A : Nag-verify
po ako kung tutoo po 'yong transmittal na 'yon at sinabi po sa akin na fake daw po
iyon.
"Q : Who
told you that it was fake?
"A : Sa opisina po ni Justice Salonga.
"Q : Can
you recall who from the employees or staff of the Office of Justice Salonga told you that said
transmittal was fake?
"A : Isa
pong P.S., Lorna. Hindi daw po P. S. si Frankie.
"Q : Going back to the place where this transmittal was handed to you. After it was handed to you, any
other words or utterances that
transpired between you and Fil?
"A : Opo, nagalit po sila sa akin dahil nahuli po raw yong taga-Docket. Nagalit po sila dahil bakit daw
nag-ano, sino daw and tumawag. May unknown
caller daw po sa opisina ni Justice Salonga.
Nagmaang-maangan ako kasi 'yon po ang turo
sa akin na huwag muna, 'huwag ka munang umamin.' 'Yon po ang sabi po nila sa akin. Ang sabi ko, 'Siguruhin 'nyo lang na hindi fake and mga binibigay 'nyo sa
aking papel at walang mangyayari. Ang
sabi po ni Evelyn, 'Walang fake sa
CA. Ang bawal lang dito ay mag-follow-up. Bawal na bawal mag-follow-up.'
"Q : For the record, who were these persons aside from Evelyn who were angry with you on that date that
you are referring to?
"A : Wala
po.
"Q : Sino 'yong mga taong 'yon?
"A : Si
Evelyn lang po ang nakikipag-communicate sa akin dahil nagagalit po raw si Fil.
"Q : Going
back to the place where Fil handed to you the transmittal, were there any other words or utterances made by Fil when
he handed to you the transmittal?
"A : Opo.
"Q : And what were those words or utterances?
"A :
"Q : Were you able to give the fifty thousand that was being demanded from you?
"A : Hindi
na po dahil alam ko na po na niloloko nila ako.
Q : And after being handed this transmittal, what
did you do?
"A : Nagsumbong
na po ako sa inyo.
"Q : After
you relayed...I withdraw. You made
mention that this matter was brought out into
the light, can you recall who warned you
that this matter was brought out?
"A : Si
Evelyn po.
"Q : How
did she relayed that this matter was pumutok?
“x x x
"A : Sa
telepono po, tinawagan niya ako. 'Bakit ganun, bakit may tumawag sa opisina ni Justice Salonga?
Sino ang nag-follow-up tungkol
sa rollo? Sabi ko naman sa 'yo huwag kang ano dahil ang rollo na 'yan confidential 'yan, bawal 'yan sa CA.'
Sabi ko, 'Bakit bawal eh nagpa-follow-up
lang ako.'
"Q : And prior to this investigation, Madam Witness, were there any instance that any of the respondents
visited your house?
"A : Opo.
"Q : When
was that, if you can recall?
"A : Maka-pasko
na po.
"Q : And who among the respondents came to your house after the Christmas season?
"A : Si
Evelyn po.
"Q : And?
"A : Saka si
Atty. Musico.
"Q : And
what was their purpose in coming to your house?
"A : Na-ano na daw po si, 'yun daw pong taga-Vauit, under investigation na po. Sabi po niya sa
akin kailangan mahinto na po
sa taga-Vault, matapos na.
"JUSTICE VILLARAMA:
Anong sabi, vault?
"A : 'Yung taga-Vault keeper. 'Yong vault-keeper po raw dapat po raw duon lang tapos na ang
investigation.
"JUSTICE VILLARAMA:
Sino 'yong vault-keeper?
"A : Sa Records, sa Docket po.
"Q : What did you answer?
"A : Sabi
ko, 'Siguruhin 'nyo lang na hindi fake 'yong pinaggagagawa 'nyo.
"Q : Where did this transpire?
"A : Sa
bahay po namin.
"Q : Sa Taguig?
"A : Opo.
"Q : Who went there?
"A : Dalawa po sila.
"Q : Atty. Musico and Ms.
Caguitla?
"A : Opo.
"x x x
"Q : Then came Atty. Musico with Ms. Caguitla for the second time insofar as Ms Caguitla is concerned?
"A : Opo.
"Q : They went to your house?
"A : Opo.
"Q : What time?
"A : Umaga po,
"Q : What day, more or less, if you can remember?
"A : Hindi
ko po matandaan pero umaga po, mga
"Q : In essence, what did they tell you? 'Yong sa pangalawa na sabay sila.
"A : Basta huwag na lang daw po akong kumibo. Huwag na lang daw akong kumibo para walang madamay.
Aanuhin na lang daw po
ni Luis.
"Q : Aanuhin
ni Luis?
"A : Aakuing na lang po lahat.
Q : Aakuing lahat?
"A :
"Q : Who said that?
"A : Si Evelyn po.
"Q : And what did you answer?
"A : Sabi
ko basta huwag nila akong lolokohin kasi baka ako ang madale ng falsification, ako pa ag
makulong. 'Siguruhin 'nyo lang
na hindi falsified ang mga binibigay 'nyo sa akin.
x x x.”
[Underscoring supplied by Justice
Villarama]
Respondents
Caguitla, Calinga and Atty. Musico questioned the credibility of complainant Catoc, pointing out that
she is a mere real estate agent who brokered the sale of the land subject of application for original
registration in CV-73287
and who was intent on claiming her commission from the said sale for which reason she was eagerly following up on the case in
this Court and falsely accused them of
wrongdoing while helping her with the case. They stress that aside from the fact that Catoc is not duly
authorized by the party-appellee Candy Maker, Inc. to follow-up the appealed
case in this Court, her testimony during the investigation [is] replete
with contradictions and inconsistencies. Respondents contend that the evidence
on record failed to satisfactorily establish their guilt for the charge of serious or grave misconduct as
these do not at all prove that they deceived or defrauded her.
Although
indeed complainant Catoc initially gave conflicting statements as to who actually handed her the second "Draft
Decision" (Exhibit "B-5"), she had already clarified during the cross-examination that said draft was
given to her by either or both
Caguitla and Atty. Musico while Calinga was the one (1) who handed to her the "transmittal"
(Exhibit "B-3"). This minor inconsistency does not detract from her positive and categorical
declaration that she conferred with respondents Caguitla, Calinga and
Atty. Musico in a lunch meeting at Hacienda Grill
during which they gave her the second "Draft Decision", Exhibit
B-5" containing the Executive
Summary in a folder. Who among the three (3) actually physically handed
the folder (Exhibit "B-5") to her is not that crucial considering
that all three (3) respondents admitted being present at the lunch meeting with
Catoc, and the latter's failure to exactly recall and precisely identify who
handed her the said folder is not
sufficient to destroy her credibility altogether and render her entire testimony
as worthless. The same thing can be said regarding Catoc's confused
statements as to whom among the three (3) respondents she actually gave the money in exchange for the "draft
decision" (Exhibit B-5).
Minor and
insignificant inconsistencies tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of the witness
for they show that his testimony is not contrived or rehearsed. Even the most candid witness
oftentimes makes mistakes
and confused statements. Thus, inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness with respect to minor details and collateral
matters do not affect the substance, veracity, or weight of the
witness'declarations. Here, a few minor inconsistencies
or mistakes by Catoc in her testimony have been overly magnified by respondents in order to completely
discredit her declarations regarding
the misrepresentations and acts of deception committed upon her by respondents Caguitla, Calinga and Atty. Musico.
Records bear out, however, that such
minor lapses were rather due to her nervousness and tension at the time she was testifying. At one (1) point, her
cross-examination was even interrupted
as she had to take medication provided by the CA medical clinic for severe pain in her lower back region.
Next,
respondents Caguitla, Calinga and Atty. Musico endeavored to show that the "Draft
Decision" (Exhibit "B-5") came from Catoc herself. However, such a theory defies simple logic and experience,
and belied by the evidence itself. First, as
respondents themselves vigorously point out, Catoc was not officially authorized by Candy Maker, Inc.
to follow-up on the case and not
being an employee or counsel, could not have access to those pleadings and documents
contained in the folder (Exhibit "B-5"). She is admittedly a mere
real estate broker interested only in the early resolution of the appeal so she
could finally get her commission
("magpakitang-gilas" to the company lot-buyer Candy Maker, Inc.). Second, if she was indeed in a
position to produce such "Draft Decision," she could have gone
directly to the office of the ponente (Justice Guevara-Salonga) or insisted that said draft be given to Caguitla's
"contact" in said office. There would have been no need for Caguitla
to find her a lawyer in the Court,
such as Atty, Kaye and Atty.Musico who are not even members of the staff of Justice Guevara-Salonga, to help
"facilitate" the resolution of the appealed case. Third and
last, the first unfinished (and equivocal) Draft Report (Exhibit "B-4") would be completely unnecessary and so with
such first meeting with Atty. Kaye, as
well as the subsequent meetings with Calinga and Atty. Musico.
Respondent
Caguitla contends that the only thing established by the evidence is complainant Catoc's meeting
with respondents whose help she sought to
facilitate the early resolution of CV-73287. Having earlier explained to Catoc that she cannot help her inasmuch as in
civil cases such as CV-73287, the
early disposition thereof would depend on the case docket number, i.e., the
ones filed earlier with lower docket
number will be resolved or decided first, Caguitla argues that she cannot be charged with improper or serious misconduct. Such defense is untenable and
contradicted by her very own actuations
being the one who was constantly communicating with Catoc regarding the case, introduced her to Calinga and
Atty. Musico, arranged their meetings
and was present in all those trysts with her.
If anything,
Caguitla appears to be the central figure in the scheme to defraud Catoc and
were it not for her representations to Catoc that resolution of CV-73287 could be "facilitated" through the
"help" of certain employees of this Court, Catoc could not have gone
any further in following-up the status of said case. In fact, Catoc only called directly the Office of Justice
Guevara-Salonga to verify the status
of CV-73287 when she had already suspected that respondents Caguitla,
Calinga and Atty. Musico had been fooling her all along. Caguitla had instructed Catoc not to follow-up
with the Office of Justice Guevara-Salonga,
telling her that such act is prohibited but which is actually meant to ensure that Catoc would not discover that the case
records have not yet even been forwarded to said office. Caguitla's
behavior is certainly reprehensible, her duties
as court stenographer assigned to the Division office which deals with litigants and concerned parties do not grant her
unbridled license to take personal interest in any pending case or make
such representation to any party that she or
certain co-employees could "facilitate" resolution or disposition thereof.
Just like his
co-respondent Caguitla, respondent Atty. Musico denies having committed any act of deception against Catoc,
asserting that he had categorically told
her that he could not help in the "facilitation" of resolution of her
appealed case for the simple reason that he is not in a position to do
so. Atty. Musico admitted that he had met twice with Catoc but only for the
purpose of recruiting her for the company of
his wife who is also a real estate broker. He denied having given Catoc a draft decision or misrepresented to her that
he could "facilitate" resolution of her case, and much less
received any money from her. He further
argues that the filing of this administrative complaint was precipitated
merely by Catoc's failure to receive her commission from the sale of a huge tract of land to Candy Maker, Inc., which
by her own admission explains her
zealousness in following-up the case on appeal with this Court.
Atty. Musico's
contentions deserve scant consideration. The alleged reason for his interest in meeting
with Catoc hardly rings of truth. Catoc positively and categorically declared that Caguitla
introduced to her Atty. Musico as the lawyer
who could help her in "facilitating" the resolution of CV-73287 and
who together with Caguitla gave her the second "Draft Decision"
(Exhibit "B-5"). Although Atty.
Musico is not a member of the staff of Justice Guevara-Salonga, he was
introduced together with respondent Calinga whom they represented to Catoc as
influential with said Justice. Such misrepresentation was sought to be buttressed later by respondents because it was
Calinga who produced or personally
handed to Catoc the "transmittal" (Exhibit "B-3")
indicating that the rollo and
original records of CV-73287 have already been forwarded to the Office of
Justice Guevara-Salonga. Significantly, Calinga confirmed and maintained that it was Atty. Musico who was
holding a paper ("draft decision") explaining while reading the same to Catoc, during their lunch meeting
at Hacienda Grill with Caguitla and
Catoc. In contrast, Atty. Musico would claim that Calinga was conspicuously absent during the lunch-meeting at
Hacienda Grill. As far as Catoc is
concerned, however, it was Atty. Musico who produced and prepared the "Draft Decision" and
accordingly she gave money through Caguitla (P10,000.00) as
"consideration" for such draft decision. On the part of Calinga, it was understood that he would get his
share upon eventual payment of the
full amount of the deal when the case is finally decided in favor of Candy Maker, Inc.
Being a court
attorney who had avowed confidentiality in performing legal research and drafting reports on the
pending cases assigned with his Justice, Atty.
Musico certainly comprehends the gravity of his acts in committing misrepresentations
concerning a pending case assigned to another office and Justice. By allowing
himself wittingly or unwittingly, to be used in the fraudulent scheme to extort
money from a person interested in the early resolution of an appealed case, Atty. Musico transgressed that duty
of conducting himself beyond suspicion on any transaction or matter
relating to the administration of justice. In
cooperating actively to defraud a concerned party such as complainant Catoc - regardless of how questionable
her ulterior motive really was -- Atty. Musico betrayed his calling as a
lawyer having revealed himself as lacking good moral character. He may well be
reminded of his dual role both as an
officer and employee of this Court and as a member of the legal profession.
A lawyer may be suspended or
disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor — possession of
good moral character is not only a good condition precedent to the
practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar. With
even greater urgency such requisite qualification be demanded of lawyers
employed in the judiciary. Those charged
with the administration of justice, from the highest magistrates to the lowliest clerk including, if not more so,
members of the Bar, must live up to the strictest standard of
honor and integrity. !f they cannot measure up to that standard, they should leave the public service or
surrender their licenses to practice law and abandon the legal
profession. When there is lack of honor and uprightness
in government, the moral fiber of the entire nation is perverted.
For the same
reason, We cannot turn a blind eye on the indispensable participation of both respondents
Calinga and Gnilo. Calinga's bare denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical
declaration of complainant Catoc that it was Calinga who handed to her the
"transmittal" which is intended to erase any doubt on her part that the rollo
and original records of CV-73287 have already been forwarded to the Office of Justice
Guevara-Salonga. Such "transmittal"
was necessary to buttress the claim of respondents that Calinga has connections to the office of Justice Salonga ("malakas
kay Justice Guevara-Salonga"). The
timing of the procurement of Calabines1 signature by Gnilo jibes with
the former's revelation during the investigation that the latter solicited his cooperation to sign the authorization form
("transmittal") "para makakuha ng pera sa taong may kaso," and which firmly established the link between Gnilo
and Calinga. Calinga tried to deny
any participation by saying that such "transmittal" does not
pass or is not coursed through their (Information Division) office. Further, he avers that he was only
prevailed upon to attend the lunch meeting
at Hacienda Grill due to the insistence of Caguitla. Interestingly, Calinga, in a futile attempt to dissociate
himself from the dealings of Caguitia and Atty. Musico with Catoc, in his Memorandum directs attention to the fact
that only the two (2) (Caguitia and
Atty. Musico) went to the house of Catoc when this case was already being investigated, clearly
insinuating that only said respondents
are actually guilty of defrauding Catoc.
Gnilo likewise contends that just
like Calabines, his duties at the JRD are merely
ministerial so that he had no option but to facilitate the request of a staff of a Justice such as Calabines to release the case
records. He denies any knowledge or
participation in the alleged misrepresentations committed by Caguitia, Calinga and Atty. Musico for the simple
reason that he was never privy thereto,
as he was only doing his job at the Civil Cases Section of the JRD. Such
defense is unavailing in view of the established fact that it was Gnilo who was responsible for the "fake"
transmittal; it was he who induced Calabines to sign the authorization form ("transmittal"), made the anomalous
entry in the official logbook and
concealed the ostensible "release" of case records without the requisite authority.
Gnilo's explanation that he had
erased the entry in the logbook because Calabines
himself failed to retrieve the rollo and original records of CV-73287 and
eventually told him that he would no longer get the same, barely sounds credible. Were it true indeed that he had simply
"cancelled" the entry by erasing it, the case number CV-73287
and title would at least remain slightly visible. But this is not so. The "cancelled" entry appears at first glance
to be exactly the same entry as the one (1) just above it. If there was
no irregularity in the subject entry erased or "cancelled," there
would have been no need to superimpose a different
case title and number. The
inescapable conclusion is that such superimposed case title and number
was made intentionally to conceal the real case
title and number so erased which is CV-73287. The "cancellation" or erasure
though was not thoroughly or expertly done because the name "Candy
Maker" is still legible upon close visual examination. Borrowing from the
aptly phrased line from a Supreme Court
decision in another controversial case involving
a changed date in the official receipt issued for a certified true copy of a
document, "what he caused to be done was done; but it was not well done.”
Moreover,
respondents Calinga, Gnilo and Atty. Musico hardly succeeds in disassociating themselves from one (1) another in the
conspiracy to defraud complainant Catoc together with Caguitia. The three (3)
admitted having met together at Alps-Restaurant (also located near the premises
of this Court along
What can be
gleaned from respondents' conduct upon the commencement of a formal investigation in this
controversy is the attempt to avert a
full-blown investigation by limiting inquiry to the incident involving the unauthorized "release" of the rollo and
original records of CV-73287. As complainant
Catoc disclosed in her testimony during the hearing, the agreement was for Gnilo to accept sole responsibility and
prevent the actual transaction or nefarious
deal with her by the rest of the respondents from being exposed. In short, the investigation should be confined only
to that "incident" at the JRD involving only Gnilo and Calabines
and stop there, but which is possible only if complainant
Catoc would cooperate and keep silent about the whole thing. When,
however, Catoc refused to obey the bidding of Caguitla and Atty. Musico and eventually came out in the open to the full
story and formally charged respondents
Caguitla, Calinga and Atty. Musico of defrauding her, the finger-pointing among the respondents began. Such acts of
"hand-washing" and exchange
of accusations among the respondents Caguitla, Calinga, Atty. Musico and Gnilo is truly a sad spectacle. Their defenses
of denial and lack of improper
motive, however, cannot be given credence at all in the face of overwhelming
evidence clearly showing their unity of purpose and design in perpetrating the fraudulent scheme upon Catoc in
connection with the pending appealed
case being followed-up by her.
In sum, the
evidence on record has satisfactorily established that respondents Caguitla, Calinga, Atty.
Musico and Gnilo acted in conspiracy and actively
cooperated with one (1) another to defraud complainant Catoc who was misled into believing that they can
"facilitate" the resolution or secure a favorable judgment in
CV-73287. That they actually derived or sought financial gain is an issue which
need not be definitely resolved for the purpose of this investigation. The
Court does not condemn the afore-mentioned respondents for drawing any material benefit from the irregularity, and their
individual intentions for allowing themselves
to become indispensable participants in deceiving complainant Catoc need not be probed into. What is
reprehensible is the fact that they allowed
themselves to be willing cohorts in the perpetration of an illicit act or
misdeed thereby violating their oath as employees of this Court which enjoins them to do no falsehood nor consent to its
commission.
Assuming for
the sake of argument, that it was complainant Catoc herself who initiated and
induced the respondents to commit irregularities to accomplish her desired outcome for the pending
case of Candy Maker, Inc., their acts in pursuit thereof constitute a very serious violation of
the integrity of judicial proceedings. Particularly with respect to Atty.
Musico who holds a respectable position in
this Court, his conduct is truly disappointing and far from ideal. The Court cannot just permit such misconduct on the
part of court personnel to be done
with impunity. As to respondents
Caguitla, Calinga and Gnilo, they must be
held liable for conspiring to mislead complainant Catoc into believing that they actually possessed such power or influence to
secure a favorable decision in a case
brought to this Court on appeal. As held by the Supreme Court, arrogating to oneself judicial powers which one
does not possess, in order to extort
money from a party-litigant for securing a favorable judgment is an ultimate betrayal of the duty to uphold the
dignity and authority of the judiciary, and should never be countenanced.
It cannot be
overstressed that the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of
the personnel who work there, from the judge to the lowest employee. Misconduct is an
unacceptable behavior that transgresses
the established rules of conduct for public officers. The due observance of the
prescribed norms of behavior are demanded no less from court personnel; indeed,
they must be role models for all those in the public service. The Court will not tolerate
or condone misconduct on the part of any judicial officer or personnel that degrade the dignity
of their office.
In acting and
cooperating together to mislead complainant Catoc that they possessed such power and influence to
secure a favorable judgment in CV-73287,
respondents Caguitla, Calinga, Atty. Musico and Gnilo committed Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty. Such reprehensible
behavior on their part constitutes a
serious violation of their sworn duties as employees of this Court and which undermines the public's faith and trust
in the administration of justice. There
exists no doubt as to the proper stance and corresponding action that must
be taken by the Court in this case. Citing time-honored precedents, our Supreme
Court had recently reiterated the following principles and rulings:
"The
conduct or behavior of all officials and employees of an agency involved in the administration
of justice, from the presiding judge to the most junior clerk, should be circumscribed with
the heavy burden of responsibility. Their
conduct must, at all times be characterized by, among others, strict propriety and decorum in order to earn and
maintain the respect of the public for the judiciary.
"We will never countenance such conduct, act or
omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which
would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the
Judiciary.
"As we held in
'[WJhat brings our judicial
system 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. This Court has never wavered in its vigilance in eradicating the so-called
'bad eggs' in the judiciary. And
whenever warranted by the gravity of the offense, the supreme penalty of dismissal in an
administrative case is meted to
erring personnel.'
"We have been resolute in our
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 which tends to give the Judiciary a bad name. To underscore our earnestness
in this pursuit, we have, in fact, been unflinching in imposing discipline on
errant personnel or in purging the ranks of those
undeserving to remain in the service. We can do no less in this
case.
"x x x"
(Citations Omitted) [underscoring
supplied by Justice Villarama]
By deceiving
complainant Catoc and even producing a "fake" authorization form purporting to show that the rolio
and original records of CV-73287 have been forwarded to the office of the ponente
with the end in view of extorting money as part of the "deal" to fix the case,
notwithstanding their lack of power and
authority to do so, respondents Caguitia, Calinga, Atty. Musico and Gnilo committed dishonesty that betrays their avowed
duties as public servants tasked with
the administration of justice. Dishonesty in a malevolent act that has
no place in the court system. It must
be emphasized that the behavior of even minor employees mirrors the image of the courts they serve, thus, they
should at all times preserve the judiciary's good name and standing as a
true temple of justice.
The Supreme
Court has ruled time and again that, by the very nature of their tasks and responsibilities, all those involved in the
administration of justice, from the highest
official to the lowliest clerk, must faithfully adhere "to, hold inviolate and invigorate the principle solemnly
enshrined in Section 1 of Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
that 'public office is a public trust. All public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people;
serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice; and lead modest
lives." Indeed, no position exacts a greater demand for moral
righteousness and uprightness from an individual than in the judiciary. Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of
integrity, uprightness and honesty.
They must exhibit the highest sense of honesty
and integrity not only in the performance of their official duties but also in
their personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve the court's good name and standing.
The Code of Judicial Ethics
expresses that the conduct of court personnel, not only in the performance of their official duties but also in their
personal life as well, should be free
from impropriety. A place in the judiciary demands upright men and women
who must carry on with dignity and be ever conscious of the impression that could create by the way they
conduct themselves.55 By committing
fraudulent acts upon complainant Catoc in connection with a pending civil case
she was following up for a party-litigant, respondents Caguitla Calinga, Atty.
Musico and Gnilo had only succeeded in soiling this Court's public image as a
bastion of impartial and effective justice. They thus proved themselves unfit
to continue as public servants in the
judiciary.
As to complainant-respondent
Frankie Calabines, the records are bereft of any
evidence showing that he was directly involved in the perpetration of fraud against
the complainant Catoc. His only fault consists in yielding to the prodding of
Gnilo to affix his signature in the "fake" transmittal or authorization
form. He admittedly succumbed to the lure of one (1) thousand pesos given by
Gnilo and thus betrayed the trust and confidence of his Justice. Filled with
remorse for the covert misdeed he had done,
Calabines readily confessed on his infraction when the unauthorized "release" of the rollo
and original records of CV-73287 later come out in the open due to the
personal follow-up made by complainant Catoc with
the Office of Justice Guevara-Salonga. In fact, the present investigation was triggered by that initial admission by
Calabines which in turn led to a more in-depth
probe with the ensuing cooperation of the concerned parties, Atty. Edwin
P. Cruz and complainant Catoc. For his contrite posture and given the absolute dearth of evidence indicating that he was
privy to or even had any knowledge of
the scheme to defraud complainant Catoc, this Investigating Justice
finds that the dismissal the charges of dishonesty and grave misconduct against Calabines is in order.[2]
Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia, now
a member of this Court, forwarded the records of the case to then Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr., stating that he fully concurs with and adopts the recommendations
of Justice Villarama, thus:
1)
That
respondents Feliciano S. Calinga, Evelyn L. Caguitla, Luis N. Gnilo and Atty. Edwin P. Musico be held liable for GRAVE MISCONDUCT and be meted the
corresponding penalty
of DISMISSAL, pursuant to Section 22 (a) and (c), Rule XIV of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order 292 and Other
Pertinent Civil Service
Laws, as amended by
Section 52 (A), paragraphs 1 and 3 of CSC Memorandum
Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, with disqualification from employment in
any government office and with
forfeiture of benefits, except for accrued leaves; and
2) That the
charges of DISHONESTY and
GRAVE MISCONDUCT against
complainant-respondent Frankie
N. Calabines be DISMISSED for lack of sufficient evidence.
After reviewing the records of the
case and studying the same in the light of the Report of Justice Villarama,
this Court agrees with the findings embodied in the Report.
The records bear out that indeed the
log book (Exh. B-1) was falsified and an entry at page 52 was erased and superimposed
with another to make it look like it was a repetition of the previous entry but
the same can still be read if held against the light as the snowpake erasure
does not completely hide the words Candy Maker, all of which point to the
liability of respondent Luis N. Gnilo of the Civil Cases Section of the
Judicial Records Division of the Court of Appeals in charge of the records of the
Candy Maker case, whose act set off the “case-fixing” activity herein involved.
Respondents Feliciano S. Calinga,
Evelyn L. Caguitla, and Atty. Edwin P. Musico undeniably met with complainant
Dolor M. Catoc at Hacienda Grill near the Court of Appeals where Catoc was
given Exh. B-5 which is a draft favorable decision in the Candy Maker case. These employees of the court, one of them a
court lawyer at that, have no business meeting with parties litigants or their
representatives, let alone under such clandestine and nefarious circumstances
as in this case, plainly to seek an exchange of a pretended decision for a sum
of money.
This Court cannot let such a brazen
and outrageous betrayal of public trust go unsanctioned.
The Court cannot overemphasize the need for honesty and integrity on
the part of all those who are in the service of the judiciary. As reiterated in the “Whereas” clauses of the
Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, “in performing their duties and
responsibilities, court personnel serve as sentinels of justice[;] and any act of impropriety on their part
immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and the people’s confidence
in it.”
The image of a court as a bastion of
justice depends to a large extent on the personal and official conduct of its
employees. Thus, from the judge to the
lowest clerk, judicial personnel have the sacred duty to maintain the good name
of the Judiciary.[3]
All employees in the judiciary should
be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency. As officers of the court and agents of the
law, they must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence. Any conduct they exhibit tending to diminish
the faith of the people in the judiciary will not be condoned.[4]
Accordingly, the Report of Justice Villarama and the findings therein
are hereby sustained as fully supported by the records, and the Court approves
his Recommendations.
WHEREFORE,
respondents Feliciano S. Calinga, Evelyn
L. Caguitla, Luis N. Gnilo and Atty.
Edwin Michael P. Musico are found GUILTY
OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT and are
meted the penalty of DISMISSAL,
pursuant to Section 22 (a) and (c), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules implementing
Book V of Executive Order 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, as
amended by Section 52 (A), paragraphs 1 and 3 of CSC Memorandum Circular No.
19, Series of 1999, with disqualification from employment in any government
office and/or forfeiture of benefits, except for accrued leaves. The charges of DISHONESTY and GRAVE
MISCONDUCT against complainant-respondent Frankie
N. Calabines are DISMISSED for
lack of sufficient evidence. No costs.
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 |
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
(On Leave) ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate
Justice DANTE O. TINGA Associate
Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |