SECOND DIVISION
|
GLANIE
FLORES, SYLVIA FLORES, RICHARD FLORES, TIMOTEO FLORES, LEONARDO FLORES,
VIRGILIO FLORES, and DANNY FLORES, Complainants, - versus - MYRNA S.
LOFRANCO, Clerk III, RTC, Br. 20, Respondent. |
A.M. No.
P-04-1914 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA, NACHURA,* and BRION, JJ.
Promulgated: April 30, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Myrna S. Lofranco (Lofranco), Clerk
III of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Digos City, stands
administratively charged with immorality, misconduct and violation of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) by complainants-brothers
Richard, Danny, Virgilio, Timoteo, and Leonardo, all surnamed Flores, along
with Leonardo and Timoteo’s respective wives Glanie and Sylvia.
In their Affidavit-Complaint[1]
dated
Complainants attached to their
Affidavit-Complaint, the Affidavit of Sabino’s son Jestoni Flores (Jestoni),[3] a certified true copy of the barangay blotter[4]
containing the alleged admission of Sabino that he was living with respondent
at the abovementioned address, and a private document denominated as “Kasabutan”[5]
upon which respondent had signed as “Myrna Soledad Flores.”
Complainants further alleged that on
September 28, 2002, respondent destroyed the fence that they had erected on
their late father’s lot at Tanwalang, Sulop, Davao del Sur, which incident was
duly reported to the barangay captain the next day as shown by the barangay
blotter also attached to their Affidavit-Complaint; that while they were with their mother repairing
the fence on October 5, 2002, respondent, together with Sabino and three hired
persons who appeared to be armed, started taking their photographs; that respondent, who was enraged when their mother asked Sabino why he
had brought other persons to the lot, proceeded to destroy the work already
done thereon; and that respondent threatened
them that if complainants set foot on the lot again, somebody would die.
Finally, complainants alleged that respondent
turned the tables on them by filing cases against them upon the claim that they
had threatened to kill, and uttered defamatory words against her, and that
respondent is the same Myrna Lofranco who was reprimanded by this Court, by
Resolution dated March 26, 2001, for discourtesy in the performance of official
duty in A.M. No. P-01-1469.
In her Counter-Affidavit[6]
submitted to the OCA, respondent denied having any amorous relationship with
Sabino, she claiming that her relationship with him was purely professional as she
was the financer in their joint business venture “of inducing [sic] the mangoes planted in the
two-hectare parcel of land constituting [sic]
the share of Sabino Flores to bear fruits.”
Admitting that she maintains her
residence at
Respondent further claimed that her
marriage to Venanie Flores had failed after 14 years and that he is now living
with his new family, leaving her to care for, support and send her three
children to school.
Respondent’s claims were corroborated
by her daughter, Theresse Jade S. Lofranco, in an Affidavit[7]
respondent annexed to her Counter-Affidavit.
On Sabino’s son Jestoni’s claim in his
Affidavit that she and Sabino were living together, respondent proffered that
Jestoni was merely prevailed upon by his grandmother and uncles to falsely
allege the same, but that, anyway, Jestoni had recanted his claim in an
Affidavit of Recantation,[8] which
she also attached to her Comment.
Respondent maintained that contrary
to their assertion, complainants were trying to force Sabino out of his share
of the property which he had planted to mangoes-subject of their joint
venture. Complainants, she added, had
twice destroyed the fence around the property – first, on September 28, 2002
and later on October 5, 2002 –, replacing it with theirs, thereby evicting
Sabino in the process; and that between
October 15 and October 17, 2002, complainants destroyed the fruits and other
improvements on the property and put up a “NO TRESPASSING” sign. These acts of complainants, she claimed,
resulted in financial losses to her investment.
Respondent admitted having taken
photographs of complainants, but explained that that was only to protect her
and the three men she had hired to spray the mangoes with chemicals.
Respondent furthermore claimed that
it was in fact complainants who threatened her and her companions with harm to
thus draw her to file criminal complaints against them for grave threats, grave
oral defamation and grave coercion.[9]
Respecting the police blotter
allegedly showing Sabino’s admission that they were living together, respondent
submitted that “it is a mere typographical error on the part of the desk
officer taking down the report of the crime complained of.”
On the “Kasabutan” adverted to by complainants, she claimed that it was prepared by armed members of the Moro
National Liberation Front during a very volatile situation in which she was
unaware that she was mistaken as the wife of Sabino.
On recommendation of the OCA,[10] the Court, by Resolution of November 8, 2004,[11] re-docketed
the complaint as a regular administrative case and referred it to the Executive
Judge of the RTC of Digos City for investigation, report and recommendation.
In her Report and Recommendation,[12]
Executive Judge Marivic Trabajo Daray reported that complainants did not show
up, despite notice,[13] during
the preliminary conference, hence, they were declared to have waived their right
to present evidence; and that respondent
was accordingly allowed to present her evidence[14]
which consisted of her testimony and those of her witnesses[15]
and a Joint Affidavit of Desistance dated February 9, 2005 executed by
complainants.
On the charge of immorality, the
investigating judge found that the only evidence to prove the same was the
Affidavit of Sabino’s son Jestoni who, however, was not presented to affirm the
affidavit and in fact he executed an affidavit of recantation.
As for the charges of misconduct and
violation of R.A. No. 6713, the investigating judge found the same wanting in
support.
Judge Daray thus recommended the
dismissal of the present complaint.
The findings and recommendations of the Investigating Judge vis-ŕ-vis the documentary and
testimonial evidence of respondent are well taken.
It
is well settled that in administrative cases, the complainant has the burden of
proving the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence.[16]
It bears stressing that Jestoni’s original
affidavit had not been identified by him.[17] It thus remains hearsay, bereft of substantial
evidentiary value.[18]
The failure of the petitioner’s counsel to put [the affiant] on the stand is fatal to the case of petitioner and renders the affidavit . . . inadmissible under the hearsay rule. Affidavits are classified as hearsay evidence since they are not generally prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiants statements, which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by he one writing them. Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross examine the affiant. For this reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiant themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify theteon.[19]
WHEREFORE, the
administrative case against respondent, Myrna S. Lofranco is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate
Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO T. NACHURA Associate Justice |
ARTURO N. BRION
Associate Justice
* Additional
member per Raffle dated
[1] Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 5-7.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Rollo, Vol. 2, pp. 127- 132.
[13]
[14]
[15] Aside from respondent, three other witnesses were presented. Theresse Jade S. Lofranco, 17, identified the Affidavit she had executed on September 26, 2003 and marked as Exhibit “9”, in which she had stated that: (1) she is a daughter of the respondent, (2) her parents were separated since 1989, (3) from the time of such separation, she and her two brothers were living with respondent, and (4) she has no knowledge that her mother was living with another man other than her father.
On the other hand, Sabino Flores, 41, single, identified the Affidavit he executed on October 7, 2002 (Exhibit “10”), stating that: (1) he was with his son Jestoni Flores when the latter executed an Affidavit dated November 13, 2002 recanting a previous Affidavit in which he had stated that his father was living with respondent, that affidavit having been executed by Jestoni under duress. Sabino also identified the barangay and police blotters of the incidents involving complainants as well as the criminal compliant he had filed against complainants.
The third witness for respondent, Remedios Flores, testified that she executed an affidavit dated April 29, 2005 (Exhibit “12”) in which she stated that she was present when Jestoni Flores executed his Affidavit of Recantation before City Prosecutor Norma Calatrava, and that Jestoni was living with her from 2001 to 2004 as she was exercising parental care and custody over him.
[16] Re: Dishonesty and/or Falsification of
Official Document of Mr. Rogelio M. Valdezco, Jr., A.M. No. 2005-22-SC,
[17] Vide Atty.
Osias v. CA, 326 Phil. 107, 128-129
(1996); People’s Bank and Trust Company v. Leonidas, G.R. No. 47815,
[18] People v.
[19] People’s Trust Company v. Leonidas, G.R.
No. 47815,