|
ROBERT R. PASCUA, Complainant, |
A.M. No. P-06-2154
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 01-1217-P) |
|
- versus - |
Present: QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO,
JR., JJ. |
|
ATTY. ANGEL P. BELTRAN, CLERK OF COURT VI, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, Respondent. |
Promulgated: March 22, 2007 |
x- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
When Robert R. Pascua, a utility aide
in the Office of the Clerk of Court in the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, discovered that he would not receive his
productivity bonus because Atty. Angel P. Beltran, Clerk of Court VI, evaluated
his performance as “unsatisfactory” for two consecutive semesters, July 1 to
December 31, 2000, and January 1 to June
30, 2001, as reflected in the
Performance Rating Form dated July 10, 2001,[1] he filed an
administrative case against Atty. Beltran. Pascua’s Affidavit/Complaint[2] dated
According to Pascua, Atty. Beltran could not have
arrived at an objective, honest and impartial evaluation of his performance
because the latter seldom reported for work and when he did, Atty. Beltran only
stayed half a day before hurrying home to Sto. Niño, Cagayan where he lived. Pascua stated that this
was the reason for Atty. Beltran’s monicker, “Phd.” for “palaging half day,” or “Attorney
Cash Bond,” in reference to Atty. Beltran’s reputation for demanding or
extorting money from bondsmen or the accused.[3]
In addition, Pascua averred
that during these half days, Atty. Beltran would often be seen playing mahjong;
or attending to his family estate; or
serving as director of the Veridiano Academy, all in Sto. Niño. Aside from these
activities, Atty. Beltran, without filing the required leave of absence, would often
go vacationing in Sampaloc, Manila, where he had another home.
In his Answer,[4]
Atty. Beltran denied all allegations and justified the “unsatisfactory” rating
he gave to Pascua. He explained that other than wash coffee cups and teaspoons,
Pascua had been remiss in his duties like dusting and
cleaning the office. He added that Pascua was dishonest, uncooperative, and
lacked initiative. He mentioned an
incident when Pascua allegedly sold the newspapers subscribed to by a co-worker
to buy alcohol, and another incident when
Pascua surreptitiously entered in the logbook the
filing of a motion that had been belatedly filed for which a memorandum was issued.
Atty. Beltran explained that he was
often out of the office and perceived by Pascua to
leave after lunch because unknown to the latter, he often had to rush before
lunch to the Land Bank in Tuguegarao to beat the cut-off time for depositing
checks received by the office; or accompany the sheriff on official errands.
And again, as the accountable officer, it was part of his function to withdraw
cash bond deposits from the Land Bank.
Atty. Beltran also averred he no
longer played mahjong, denied involvement in the family estate as his
siblings took care of this, and claimed he only went to Sto. Niño on weekends
since he had a boarding house there.
Upon order of the Court,[5] Judge Vilma T. Pauig investigated, reported and gave her
recommendation on the matter.[6] She found that although Atty. Beltran offered
no evidence in his behalf, Pascua for his part, who
carried the burden of proving his accusation of oppression and grave abuse in
the evaluation of his performance, had not been able to substantiate his
charges. Except for the affidavits of the Mayor, the Municipal Secretary of
Sto. Niño, a teacher in
As to the affidavit and testimony of
one witness, a certain Cesar Cabalza,[7] Judge Pauig averred
that these alone are inconclusive concerning the truth of the allegation that
Atty. Beltran extorted money.
What Judge Pauig
found strange was the manner Atty. Beltran accomplished the Performance Rating
Forms. From her investigation, it appeared that Atty. Beltran asked the
employees to sign blank forms without discussing nor informing them of the
manner he arrived at the final ratings which he alone filled up. She noted that
the inclusive rating period should cover only January 1 to
Upon
evaluation of the investigation, report and recommendation of Judge Pauig, the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with the findings of the
investigating judge and recommended to this Court the following: (1) the
charges of oppression and abuse of authority be dismissed; and (2) respondent
Atty. Beltran be found guilty of simple neglect of duty which carries a penalty
of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months suspension.[9]
However, since Atty. Beltran had compulsorily retired, the OCA recommends
instead, that a fine equivalent to one (1) month salary be imposed on Atty. Beltran, to be deducted from the P50,000
retained from his retirement benefits (A.M. No. 11864 Retirement dated April
25, 2005), the balance to be released to Atty. Beltran.[10]
We have gone over the records of this administrative case, and
we find the investigation, report and recommendations of Judge Pauig and the OCA
all in order. The manner in which Atty. Beltran accomplished the semestral Performance
Rating Forms in the Office of the Clerk of Court is an indication of his
cavalier attitude and his total lack of understanding of the seriousness of the
required performance evaluation by the Court and the Civil Service Commission. Moreover,
second-guessing the evaluation of the performance of an employee is a direct
assault on the very core of what justice and fairness is all about.
The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel
stresses that employees of the judiciary 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.[11]
This Court has recently spent millions
in training, seminars and literature to uplift the professionalism of its
employees, and cases, such as this one, put all its efforts to naught. The
accusations of incompetence, bias, neglect of duty, extortion, and abuse of
authority, by one employee against another, ought not to be taken lightly, for
they not only put the Court in a bad light but undermine the whole efforts of
the judiciary. We take this occasion to
reiterate that the behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with
the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the clerk of lowest
rank, should be circumscribed with a high degree of responsibility.[12]
WHEREFORE, the charges of oppression and abuse of authority filed
against respondent Atty. Angel P. Beltran are DISMISSED for lack of
sufficient evidence. Respondent is, however, found GUILTY of simple
neglect of duty. We hereby ORDER that
a fine equivalent to one (1) month salary be imposed on Atty. Beltran, to be
deducted from the P50,000 retained from his retirement benefits (A.M. No.
11864 Retirement dated April 25, 2005), and the balance thereof to be
released to him.
|
SO ORDERED. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
WE
CONCUR: ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, p. 4.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Concerned Employee v. Generoso, A.M.
No. 2004-33-SC,
[12] Mataga v. Rosete, A.M. No.
MTJ-03-1488,