|
ANACLITO* CARANDANG, Complainant, -versus- REMEDIOS BASE, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial
Court, Brooke’s Point, Palawan,
Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-08-2440 [formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1730-P] Present: QUISUMBING,
J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, AZCUNA,** TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
and VELASCO,
JR.,*** JJ. Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.
In
a Complaint dated
July 23, 2003,[1] Anaclito
Carandang (complainant) charged Remedios Base (respondent), Clerk of
Court, Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Brooke’s Point, Palawan with “gross and
grave misconduct in office” and violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, “The
Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act,” vis
a vis Criminal Case No. 17087, “People of the Philippines v. Monique
Carandang, et al.,” for illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia.
In his Malayang Salaysay[2] dated July 17,
2003 which was subscribed and sworn to on July 23, 2003, complainant claimed that
on April 12, 2003, his wife went to the office of respondent, who
summoned her, during which respondent demanded from her the amount of P3,600
to facilitate the dismissal of the criminal case against complainant who was
one of the accused in the above-stated criminal case; and as his wife could not afford to give the said
amount, respondent reduced it to P1,600, and finally to P500
which his wife handed to respondent in the presence of Danilo Martinez, a
neighbor.[3]
It turned out that the criminal case
against complainant had been dismissed more than a year earlier, by Order dated
Complainant went on to allege that despite the dismissal on December 6,
2001 of the criminal case against him, he was arrested on November 27, 2002 and
released on December 3, 2002,[5]
and again arrested on March 27, 2003 at the instance of respondent and a
certain Joy Cacal.[6]
In her Comment dated October 20, 2003,[7]
respondent, denying the charges, alleged that April 12, 2003 being a Saturday,
the MTC of Brooke’s Point did not hold office or court session, and as she resides
in Puerto Princesa City which is about 196 kilometers away, she would leave
Brooke’s Point after office hours every Friday to join her family on weekends.[8]
On her alleged instigation of
complainant’s arrest despite the prior dismissal of the criminal case against
him, respondent proffered lack of knowledge of said prior dismissal, explaining
as follows:
4.0.3
– Mr. Carandang is correct in his allegation that his case (Crim. Case No.
17087) was already dismissed by
4.0.4 – I did not initiate or instigate the arrest of Mr. Carandang. He was arrested on the strength of a standing warrant of arrest and was merely presented to us by the arresting officers for the issuance of a commitment order. What we did in issuing the commitment order was a mere ministerial duty. x x x
4.0.5 – Neither was the MTC of
Brooke’s Point,
4.0.6 – The allegation in Par. 12 of
the complainant’s “Malayang Salaysay” is likewise not true. He was not arrested on 27 March 2003 simply
because he was still under detention as evidence [sic] by the certification issued by Police Inspector Ernesto M.
Bolos, OIC of the Brooke’s Point
By Resolution of
In her Report and Recommendation,[11]
Judge Pe-Abiog recommended the dismissal of the case in light of her evaluation
that:
… (1)
The extortion of P500.00 was never proven by the complainants. Their
affidavits are self-serving. They were given two opportunities in court to
ventilate their grievance but they did not pursue the same; (2) The
complainants’ [sic] affidavits alleged that the incident happened on
April 12, 2003 a Saturday and the other affidavit (“Sagot sa Counter-Affidavit
ni Remedios Base page 003 dated October 17, 2003) said that it happened on a
Friday; and during the hearing on October 12, 2004 TSN page 2, Dioscora said
that the incident happened on a Wednesday. The inconsistencies in the day
alleged cast doubts on the veracity of their statements. (3) The complainant
and his witnesses never mentioned in their statements filed with the Office of
the Court Administrator and the Ombudsman that they went to court or to
respondent to ask help for the preparation of the property bond. It was only mentioned
on
The Report cum Recommendation of Judge Abiog-Pe was referred by this Court to the
OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.[13]
In its Memorandum dated
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the investigating judge. Aside from the bare allegations of complainant and his witnesses, there was no evidence presented to prove that respondent clerk of court indeed received money as consideration for her to facilitate the dismissal of the criminal case against complainant.
On the other hand, respondent Base,
through her witnesses, proved that Mrs. Dioscora Carandang went to court
sometime in April 2003 to request assistance for her to post a property bond in
favor of her husband Anacleto Carandang. It was thereafter that she found out that
Criminal case No. 17087 had already been dismissed by Judge Perfecto E. Pe as
early as
We agree with the contention of
respondent that she should not be blamed for the failure of the court to inform
complainant that the case against the latter has already been dismissed. As certified by RTC, Branch 48,
As regards the allegation of
complainant and his witnesses that in order to further extort money from them,
respondent Base caused his re-arrest on
The act of respondent which may have
led to the filing of the instant administrative complaint was her issuance
of the order committing accused Lito Carandang to the chief of police,
Section 9, Rule 112, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, provides that:
x x x x
b. x x x If the judge still finds no probable cause
despite the additional evidence, he shall, within ten (10) days from its
submission or expiration of said period, dismiss the case. When he finds probable cause, he shall issue
a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused had already been
arrested, and hold him for trial. x x x.”…
Clearly, the issuance of a commitment order is not among the functions of respondent clerk of court. It is a judicial function and not an
administrative one. She had no power to
order the commitment of a person charged with penal offenses. In so doing, she arrogated unto herself
the authority to exercise judicial discretion and overstepped the boundaries of
her functions.
In the resolution of the Court in the case of Atty. Jose R. Ortiz, Jr., Clerk of Court VI, Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City vs. Larry de Guzman, Branch Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 33, Quezon City (A.M. No. P-03-1708, February 16, 2005), respondent Larry de Guzman was dismissed from the service for committing, among several others, the act of issuing orders for the release or commitment of persons charged with penal offenses.[14] (Underscoring in the original; emphasis and italics supplied)
In fine, the OCA recommended that the
complaint against respondent for grave misconduct and violation of R.A. No.
3019 be DISMISSED but that she be REPRIMANDED for arrogating unto herself “the
authority to exercise judicial direction and overstep[ping] the boundaries of
her functions.”
By Resolution of
The Court finds that by issuing a
commitment order,[18] respondent
arrogated upon herself a judicial function.
…The Clerk of Court, unlike a judicial authority, has no power to order either the commitment or the release on bail of person charged with penal offenses. The Clerk of Court may release an order “upon the order of the Judge” or “by authority of the Judge,” but under no circumstance should the clerk make it appear that the judge signed the order when in fact, the judge did not.[19] (Underscoring supplied)
Such act of respondent amounts to simple misconduct, an
unlawful behavior, “an unacceptable behavior that transgresses the established
rules of conduct for public officers.”[20]
Respondent was previously fined in Angeles v. Base[21]
in an amount equivalent to
her one-month salary for simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense
punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first
offense, or dismissal for the second.
Under the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[22]
simple misconduct is also a less grave offense.[23]
In order to prevent any undue adverse effect on the public service,
however, in lieu of suspension, respondent is FINED in an amount equivalent to
her two months salary, with stern warning.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds Remedios
Base, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court of Brooke’s Point,
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ADOLFO S. AZC Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
(No part) PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
* Also spelled as Anacleto in some parts of the records.
** Additional member per Administrative Circular No. 84-2007.
*** No part.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-2. A complaint was also filed before the Office of the Ombudsman but was referred to then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (now an Associate Justice of this Court) by the Office of the Ombudsman.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Ibid.
[18]
[19] Judge Vallarta v. Vda. De Batoon, 405 Phil. 454, 460 (2001).
[20] Bautista
v. Sula, A.M. No. P-04-1920,
[21] 443 Phil. 723 (2003).
[22] Civil Service Commission Resolution No.
991936,
[23] Section 52 B (2).