Republic of
the
Supreme Court
EN BANC
|
Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Atty. Miguel
Morales, Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila |
A.M. No. P-08-2519 (Formerly
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2155-P) |
|
|
|
|
And |
|
|
Anonymous Letter-Complaint against
Clerk of Court Atty. Henry P. Favorito of the
Office of the Clerk of Court, Clerk of Court Atty. Miguel Morales of Branch 17, Clerk of Court Amie Grace Arreola of Branch 4,
Administrative Officer III William Calda of the
Office of the Clerk of Court and Stenographer Isabel Siwa
of Branch 16, all of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila. |
A.M. No. P-08-2520 (Formerly
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2156-P) Present: PUNO,
C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO-MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, REYES,
DE
CASTRO, and BRION,
JJ. Promulgated: November
19, 2008 |
x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- x
R E S O L U T I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Before
the Court are two anonymous complaints: docketed as A.M. No. P-08-2519 charging
Atty. Miguel Morales (Atty. Morales), Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 17,
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
A.M. No. P-08-2519
In
an unsigned and undated letter which the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) received on February 24, 2005, the writers, who claim to be employees of
the OCC-MeTC of Manila, allege that Atty. Morales,
then detailed at the OCC, was consuming his working hours filing and attending
to personal cases, such as administrative cases against employees in his old sala, using office supplies, equipment and
utilities. The writers aver that Atty. Morales’s conduct has demoralized them
and they resorted to filing an anonymous complaint in fear of retaliation from
Atty. Morales.[1]
Assistant
Court Administrator (ACA) now Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Reuben P. dela Cruz, conducted a discreet investigation on
Atty.
Morales filed a letter-complaint addressed to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. against
DCA Dela Cruz and his companions for alleged
conspiracy and culpable violation of Secs. 1,[4]
2[5]
& 3[6]
of Art. III of the Constitution relative to the spot investigation. Said letter-complaint was indorsed by the
Chief Justice to the Court Administrator on
Parenthetically,
Atty. Favorito, together with more than a hundred
employees of the MeTC Manila, wrote an undated letter
to Chief Justice Davide assailing the spot
investigation conducted by DCA Dela Cruz.[9] Said letter was indorsed by Chief Justice Davide to DCA Dela Cruz on
In
a 1st Indorsement dated
In
his Manifestation which the OCA received on April 27, 2005, Atty. Morales alleged that: the anonymous letter-complaint
should not have been given due course as there is no truth to the allegations
therein; the OCA took almost a year to act on the anonymous letter-complaint
which did not have the proper indorsement from the
Office of the Chief Justice; even though he brought to the OCC his personal
computer, such act is not prohibited; he did not use his computer to write
pleadings during office hours and neither did he use paper of the OCC; the
“raid” conducted by DCA Dela Cruz without search and
seizure orders violated his right to privacy and the articles seized therewith
should be considered inadmissible.[12]
In
a letter dated
A.M. No. P-08-2520
In
another unsigned letter dated April 1, 2004, the writers who claim to be
employees of the OCC-MeTC, Manila, charge Atty.
Morales, Arreola, Atty. Favorito,
Calda and Siwa of the
following offenses: Atty. Morales and Arreola, who
are both detailed in the OCC, leave the office after logging-in only to return
in the afternoon, which acts are allowed by Atty. Favorito;
Atty. Morales and Arreola were not given assignments
and whenever they are at the office, they do nothing but play computer games; Siwa is also allowed by Atty. Favorito
to lend money and rediscount checks during office hours using court premises;
many people from different offices go to the OCC because of the business of Siwa; Atty. Favorito also allows
two of Siwa's personal maids to use the OCC as their
office in rediscounting checks; and Atty. Favorito
and Calda charge P50.00 to P500.00 from
sureties claiming said amounts to be processing fees without issuing receipts therefor.[15]
In
the same spot investigation conducted by DCA De La Cruz on P65,390.00
and six commercial checks, which Siwa voluntarily
opened to the team. These were also
confiscated and turned over to the custody of the OCA.[16]
In a letter to then Chief Justice Davide dated April 12, 2005, Siwa
requested that said money and personal belongings that were confiscated be
returned to her immediately and that a formal investigation be conducted
regarding DCA Dela Cruz's conduct during the spot
investigation.[17]
The seized items were later returned to Siwa[18]
while her letter-complaint was indorsed by the Chief Justice to the Court
Administrator on
In
a 1st Indorsement dated
Atty. Morales submitted
the same Manifestation he submitted in A.M. P-08-2519.
Siwa in her Comment avers that: the anonymous
letter-complaint should not have been given due course as it contravened Sec.
46(c) of Executive Order No. 292 and the implementing rules; it was not subscribed
and sworn to by the complainant and there is no obvious truth to the
allegations therein; while she admits that she is involved in the business of
rediscounting checks, such is a legitimate endeavor, in fact, there are other
employees of the court engaged in the same business; she is also not aware of
any rule prohibiting her from engaging in said endeavor; she does not use the
OCC to conduct her business and she is mindful of her duties as a government
employee; thus, she has a staff to do the encashment of the checks; there were
rare occasions when her staff members were stationed at the corridors to lend
cash to employees but while said occasions may have occurred during office
hours, her staff cannot be blamed for the same since the employees go to them;
she has never neglected her duty as a court stenographer -- in fact, her last
performance rating was “very satisfactory”; it is a known fact that because of
the meager pay given to government employees, most augment their income by
engaging in business; she should not be singled out for being enterprising and
industrious; and it is unfair to accuse her of wrongdoing at a time when she
has voluntarily retired from government service due to health reasons.[21]
A
month after the incident, Siwa filed for optional
retirement[22]
which the Court approved in its Resolution[23]
dated P30,000.00 shall be retained from the money value of her earned leave
credits pending resolution of the present case.
Calda explains in his letter dated April 25, 2005 that: the
fees of P50.00 and P500.00 were charged in connection with the
filing of surety and cash bonds pursuant to Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of
Court and that corresponding official receipts were issued; at nighttime, he is
the one authorized to approve the filing of surety bonds since he is the
highest ranking officer of a skeletal force detailed for night court duty; he
has been with the MeTC for 16 years, rose in rank,
was never involved in any controversy and would never tarnish his reputation.[24]
Arreola asserts that: her record of arrival and departure
was always signed by her superiors without question because it reflected the
correct entries; she is always in the office even when there is typhoon; and
she has proven herself useful in the OCC by answering queries of litigants and
verifications from other offices and attending to complaints.[25]
In
compliance, Atty. Favorito adopted the comments of
Atty. Morales, Calda and Arreola
and denied that he committed the acts alluded to in the anonymous
letter-complaint.[26] Atty.
Favorito also incorporated in his comment a letter of
the employees of the OCC-MTC Manila disowning the alleged anonymous complaint.[27]
In
a Resolution dated July 27, 2005, the Court, upon recommendation of the OCA,
consolidated the two complaints and referred the same to the Executive Judge of
the MeTC, Manila for investigation, report and
recommendation.[28]
Report of the Investigating Judge
In
her Report dated
The
following employees were interviewed: Rueben Duque,
Clerk of Court, Branch 16, MeTC; Beneluz
Dumlao, Records Officer I; Marilou
Magbag, Clerk III; Estrella
Rafael, Records Officer I; Lydia dela Cruz, Records
Officer III; Raymundo Bilbao,
Clerk III; Marie Joy Valle, Clerk IV, and Ma. Lizabeth
Marcelino, Administrative Officer II, all of the OCC;
Rosie Jose, freelance bondswoman, and Norberto D. Soriano,
authorized representative of the Commonwealth Insurance Company.[30]
After
conducting her investigation, Judge Estoesta found:
Insofar as Atty. Morales,
Atty. Favorito, Calda and Arreola are concerned, the investigation immediately stumbled
into a dead end. No one from the OCC
personnel who were interviewed would give a categorical and positive statement
affirming the charges against the said personnel. While almost all confirmed that Atty. Morales
maintained his own computer and printer at the OCC, nobody could state for
certain that what he worked on were pleadings for private cases. Rafael, who
was seated right next to Atty. Morales at the OCC merely said that what
preoccupied Atty. Morales were his own administrative cases. She did not notice Atty. Morales engage in
private work in his computer although she saw Atty. Icaonapo
drop by the office every now and then to personally see Atty. Morales. Rafael
explained however that this could be because Atty. Icaonapo
was the counsel of Atty. Morales in his administrative cases. While documents referring to private cases
were found in the hard drive of the computer of Atty. Morales, and while the
writing style is similar to that of the Manifestation he filed in this case,
still no definite conclusion could be drawn that he has composed the said
pleadings at the OCC during official working hours. A close examination of the
Pre-Trial Brief signed by Atty. Icaonapo and filed
with the RTC Branch 1,
There
was also no evidence to support charges of extortion against Atty. Favorito and Calda. Two bondsmen who were randomly interviewed
denied that Atty. Favorito and Calda
exacted illegal sums from them. The
amounts they charged could actually refer to legal fees.[32]
As
to Arreola, the charge against her also has no
basis. The interviewees were unanimous
in saying that Arreola was always around the office,
and that while she fetched her son from a nearby school, she did so during
lunch or after office hours. Random
checks on Arreola also revealed that she was always
at the OCC and at Branch 30 where she was reassigned.[33]
As
to Siwa, she candidly admitted that she was engaged
in lending and discounting activities at her station, through her own staff
which she had maintained for said purpose.
Because of her business, a number of employees, even those from other
government agencies, usually huddled at her station to hold transactions. Branch Clerk of Court Ruben Duque relates that a number of people would often go to
their office looking for Siwa for lending and
rediscounting. Assuming that Siwa is not prohibited from engaging in said business,
still it has distracted her from her duties as a stenographer. A random check on the court records of Branch
16 showed that Siwa had not yet submitted a complete
transcription of 7 stenographic notes in 5 cases, 3 of which already had
decisions rendered. In one case, the
testimonies of two prosecution witnesses had to be re-taken to fill in the gap
which not only wasted precious time of the court but also distressed the
efforts of the prosecution in the presentation of its case.[34]
Judge
Estoesta recommended as follows:
1. In OCA IPI No. 05-2155-P [now A.M. No. P-08-2519], with no substantial evidence taken to prove the charges in the anonymous letter-complaint filed against Atty. Miguel C. Morales, it is RECOMMENDED that the same be ordered dismissed;
2. In OCA IPI No. 05-2156-P [now A.M. No. P-2520], likewise, with no substantial evidence taken to prove the charges in the anonymous letter-complaint filed against Atty. Miguel C. Morales, Atty. Henry P. Favorito, William Calda and Amie Grace Arreola, it is RECOMMENDED that the same be ordered dismissed insofar as said court employees are concerned; and
3.
In OCA IPI No. 05-2156-P [now
A.M. No. P-08-2520] insofar as it concerns Ms. Isabel Siwa,
it is RECOMMENDED that she be directed to explain why she still has
stenographic notes pending for transcription despite having already availed of
an optional retirement pay.[35]
The
report was referred to the OCA for its evaluation, report and recommendation.[36]
OCA Report and Recommendation
The
OCA, through ACA Antonio H. Dujua, in its
Instead the OCA submits
the following findings.
On Atty. Morales: The
allegation that Atty. Morales had been using his personal computer to draft
pleadings for private counsels was established in the spot inspection on
On Siwa:
While she insisted that the anonymous letter should not have been given due
course, she admitted in her April 28, 2005 Manifestation to being involved in
the business of rediscounting checks, claiming that she was not the only
employee engaged in the same, and that she maintained her own personnel to do
the rediscounting which stretched to the premises of the MeTC-OCC
where Atty. Favorito is the Clerk of Court.[37]
The
OCA concluded that: Atty. Morales and Siwa should be
found guilty of gross misconduct. Atty.
Morales, for preparing pleadings for private counsels and litigants; and Siwa, for engaging in the business of rediscounting checks
during office hours; gross misconduct
carries the penalty of dismissal from the service even for the first offense,
and while Atty. Morales and Siwa have already left
the judiciary, the Court can still direct the forfeiture of their
benefits; Atty. Favorito
should also be held liable for neglect of duty because as Clerk of Court of the
MeTC-OCC, he was negligent in allowing the nefarious
activities of Atty. Morales and Siwa to happen right
inside the confines of the MeTC-OCC.[38]
On
Arreola and Calda: The OCA
agrees with Judge Estoesta that the charges against
them should be dismissed for lack of concrete evidence.[39]
The
OCA then recommended:
(a)
That (resigned) Clerk of Court
Miguel C. Morales, Branch 17, and (retired) Court Stenographer Isabel A. Siwa, Branch 16, both of the Metropolitan Trial Court,
(b) That Clerk of Court Henry P. Favorito of the MeTC-OCC, Manila be found GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty and suspended without pay for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely; and
(c)
That the charges made in the April
1, 2004 anonymous letter against Clerk of Court Amie
Grace A. Arreola, Branch 4 and Administrative Officer
III William Calda, OCC, both of the MeTC, Manila be DISMISSED for lack of merit.[40]
The Court's Ruling.
The
Court partly adopts the findings and recommendations of the OCA with some
modifications.
An
anonymous complaint is always received with great caution, originating as it
does from an unknown author. Such a
complaint, however does not justify outright dismissal for being baseless or
unfounded for the allegations therein may be easily verified and may, without
much difficulty, be substantiated and established by other competent evidence. Indeed, complainant’s identity would hardly be
material where the matter involved is of public interest.[41]
Liability of Atty. Morales.
The
two anonymous letters charge Atty. Morales with the following offenses:
attending to personal cases while using official time, office supplies,
equipment and utilities, leaving the office after logging-in in the morning
only to return in the afternoon, and playing computer games whenever he was at
the office.
It
is undisputed that pleadings for private cases were found in Atty. Morales's
personal computer in the MeTC-OCC and Atty. Morales
could not provide any satisfactory explanation therefor. Such fact, by itself, could already make
Atty. Morales liable for simple misconduct for it hints of impropriety on his
part. The Court has always stressed that
all members of the judiciary should be free from any whiff of impropriety, not
only with respect to their duties in the judicial branch but also to their
behavior outside the court as private individuals, in order that the integrity
and good name of the courts of justice shall be preserved.[42]
Atty.
Morales, in defense, argues that since the pleadings were acquired from his
personal computer which DCA Dela Cruz confiscated
without any valid search and seizure order, such evidence should be considered
as the fruits of a poisonous tree as it violated his right to privacy.
Both
the Investigating Justice and the OCA failed to discuss this matter. The Court however finds it proper to squarely
address such issue, without prejudice to the outcome of the administrative case
filed by Atty. Morales against DCA Dela Cruz
regarding the same incident. The finding
of guilt or exoneration of Atty. Morales hinges on this very crucial question:
Are the pleadings found in Atty. Morales's personal computer admissible in the
present administrative case against him?
The
Court answers in the negative.
Enshrined
in our Constitution is the inviolable right of the people to be secure in their
persons and properties against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is
provided for under Section 2, Article III thereof.[43] The exclusionary rule under Section 3(2),
Article III of the Constitution also bars the admission of evidence obtained in
violation of such right.[44] The fact that the present case is
administrative in nature does not render the above principle inoperative. As expounded in Zulueta
v. Court of Appeals,[45]
any violation of the aforestated constitutional
right renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
There
are exceptions to this rule one of which is consented warrantless
search.[46]
DCA
Dela Cruz in his report claims that that they were
able to obtain the subject pleadings with the consent of Atty. Morales.[47] The Court finds however that such allegation
on his part, even with a similar allegation from one of his staff,[48]
is not sufficient to make the present case fall under the category of a valid warrantless search.
Consent
to a search is not to be lightly inferred and must be shown by clear and
convincing evidence.[49] It must be voluntary in order to validate an
otherwise illegal search; that is, the consent must be unequivocal, specific,
intelligently given and uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.[50] The burden of proving, by clear and positive
testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and
voluntarily given lies with the State.[51]
Acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights is not to be presumed and
courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental
constitutional rights.[52] To constitute a valid consent or waiver of
the constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it must be shown that
(1) the right exists; (2) that the person involved had knowledge, either actual
or constructive, of the existence of such right; and (3) the said person had an
actual intention to relinquish the right.[53]
In
this case, what is missing is a showing that Atty. Morales had an actual
intention to relinquish his right.
While he may have agreed to the opening of his personal computer and the
printing of files therefrom, in the presence of DCA Dela Cruz, his staff and some NBI agents during the March
16, 2005 spot investigation, it is also of record that Atty. Morales
immediately filed an administrative case against said persons questioning the
validity of the investigation, specifically invoking his constitutional right
against unreasonable search and seizure.
While
Atty. Morales may have fallen short of the exacting standards required of every
court employee, unfortunately, the Court cannot use the evidence obtained from
his personal computer against him for it violated his constitutional
right.
As
the Court has staunchly declared:
The Bill of Rights is the bedrock of constitutional government. If people are stripped naked of their rights as human beings, democracy cannot survive and government becomes meaningless. This explains why the Bill of Rights, contained as it is in Article III of the Constitution, occupies a position of primacy in the fundamental law way above the articles on governmental power.
The right against unreasonable search and seizure in turn is at the top of the hierarchy of rights, next only to, if not on the same plane as, the right to life, liberty and property, which is protected by the due process clause. This is as it should be for, as stressed by a couple of noted freedom advocates, the right to personal security which, along with the right to privacy, is the foundation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure “includes the right to exist, and the right to enjoyment of life while existing.”
x x x x
Unreasonable
searches and seizures are the menace against which the constitutional
guarantees afford full protection. While the power to search and seize may at
times be necessary to the public welfare, still it may be exercised and the law
enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for
the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify
indifference to the basic principles of government.[54]
And
as there is no other evidence, apart from the pleadings, retrieved from the
unduly confiscated personal computer of Atty. Morales, to hold him administratively
liable, the Court has no choice but to dismiss the charges herein against him
for insufficiency of evidence.
Liability of Siwa.
The
Court agrees with the OCA that Siwa should be
administratively disciplined for engaging in the business of lending and
rediscounting checks.
Siwa admits engaging in the business of lending and
rediscounting checks, claiming that it was a legitimate endeavor needed to
augment her meager income as a court employee; that she is not aware of any
rule prohibiting her from engaging in the business of rediscounting checks;
that there are other employees engaged in the same business; and that she
employs her own staff to do the encashment of the checks as she always attends
to and never neglects her duties as a stenographer.[55]
Siwa is clearly mistaken.
Officials
and employees of the judiciary are prohibited from engaging directly in any
private business, vocation, or profession even outside office hours to ensure
that full-time officers of the court render full-time service so that there may
be no undue delay in the administration of justice and in the disposition of
cases.[56] The nature of work of court employees
requires them to serve with the highest degree of efficiency and responsibility
and the entire time of judiciary officials and employees must be devoted to
government service to ensure efficient and speedy administration of justice.[57]
Indeed, the Court has always stressed that court employees must strictly
observe official time and devote every second moment of such time to public
service.[58] And while the compensation may be meager,
that is the sacrifice judicial employees must be willing to take.
As
pronounced by the Court in Biyaheros Mart
Livelihood Association, Inc. v. Cabusao, Jr.:
Government service demands great sacrifice. One who cannot live with the modest salary of a public office has no business staying in the service. He is free to seek greener pastures elsewhere. The public trust character of the office proscribes him from employing the facilities or using official time for private business or purposes.[59]
Siwa's offense is compounded by the fact that she was
previously verbally instructed by her superior, MeTC
Branch 16 Presiding Judge Crispin B. Bravo, to stop using court premises for her
business. But she ignored the same, prompting the latter to issue a written
Memorandum dated
Siwa apologized and promised not to let it happen again, in
her letter dated
Her
allegation that she never neglected her duty as a stenographer is also belied
by the findings of the Investigating Judge, who in her random check of records,
discovered that Siwa had not yet submitted a complete
transcription of 7 stenographic notes in 5 cases (3 criminal and 2 civil cases),
in three of which decisions were already
rendered.[63] In one case, the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses had to be re-taken.[64] Thus, contrary to Siwa's
assertion, she was not able to satisfactorily perform her duties as a court
stenographer while engaging in private business.
Her
argument that her business is a legal endeavor also cannot excuse her from
liability. Many “moonlighting” activities
pertain to legal acts that otherwise would be countenanced if the actors were
not employed in the public sector. And
while moonlighting is not normally considered a serious misconduct,
nonetheless, by the very nature of the position held, it amounts to a
malfeasance in office.[65]
Siwa conducted her business within the court's premises,
which placed the image of the judiciary, of which she is part, in a bad
light. Time and again, the Court has
held that the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official
and otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat; thus the conduct of a person
serving the judiciary must, at all times, be characterized by propriety and
decorum, and be above suspicion so as to earn and keep the respect of the
public for the judiciary.[66]
Siwa's infraction constitutes conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service which, under Sec. 52 A (20) of Rule IV of the
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, carries the penalty
of suspension of 6 months and 1 day to 1 year for the first offense and
dismissal for the second offense. Since
this is her first offense and considering the October 12, 2005 Resolution of
the Court in A.M. No. 12096-Ret. which approved Siwa's
application for optional retirement, retaining only the amount of P30,000.00
from the money value of her earned leave credits pending resolution of the
instant case, the Court finds she should be imposed the penalty of fine in the
amount of P30,000.00.
Liability of Atty. Favorito.
There
is no evidence to show that Atty. Favorito knows or
should have known that Atty. Morales had copies of pleadings for private cases
in his personal computer for which Atty. Favorito could
be held liable for neglect of duty as supervisor. As to Siwa's
lending and rediscounting activities, however, the Court finds that Atty. Favorito was remiss in addressing said matter which
activity took place in the court's premises which was under his responsibility.
Clarifications,
however, should be made.
The
OCA in its Memorandum dated
x x x in her April 28, 2005 Manifestation, Siwa admitted to being involved in the business of rediscounting checks, claiming that 'she is not the only employee engaged in the same business.' Respondent [Siwa] even had the audacity to admit that she 'maintained my own personnel' to do the rediscounting which stretched to the premises of the MeTC-OCC, where respondent Favorito is the Clerk of Court.[67] (Emphasis supplied)
A
review of the records, however, would show that what Siwa
submitted is not a “Manifestation” but a “Comment” dated
4.1. Respondent admits that she is involved in the business of rediscounting checks x x x.
x x x x
4.2. Respondent, however, denies that she uses the Office of the Clerk of Court to conduct this business x x x.
4.3. There are other occasions when the said staff will be stationed at the corridors to lend emergency cash to employees in need. The said occasions may have occurred during office hours, for which, the respondent's staff may not be blamed since it was the employees themselves who go to them. However, these instances were rare. It should also be emphasized that these transactions occurred outside of the offices and within the common or public areas.[68] (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, Siwa
never admitted that her business stretched to the premises of the OCC-MeTC but only claimed that her staff used “corridors” which
were “common or public areas” for their transactions.
Still,
Atty. Favorito failed to address such matter and to prevent
such activities from taking place, even if they were conducted in the corridors,
since such areas are still part of the court's premises. As Clerk of Court of the OCC, it is Atty. Favorito's duty to plan, direct, supervise and coordinate
the activities of all divisions/sections/units in the OCC.[69] He should therefore be reprimanded for his
failure to duly supervise and prevent such activities from happening within his
area of responsibility.
Liability of Atty. Favorito and Calda on the
extortion charges.
On the claim that Atty. Favorito and Caldo extorted money
from sureties without issuing receipts therefor, the
Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the Investigating
Judge and the OCA.
Investigating
Judge Estoesta found that:
x x x the charges of “extortion” levelled against Atty. Henry P. Favorito and Mr. William Calda x x x suffered from loose ends.
Random interviews with two (2) bondsmen denied that Atty. Favorito and Mr. Calda exacted such amounts.
The P50.00 and P500.00
specified to as “processing fee” could actually refer to the Legal Fees
mandated under Section 8 (o) and Section 21 (c) of Rule 141, as follows x x x
Here, it is obvious that the anonymous letter-complainant has no understanding whatsoever of the legal fees charged by Office of the Clerk of Court.
This actually hints of the fact that
said anonymous letter-complainant may not be a personnel of the Office of the
Clerk of Court after all.
The extortion charge slapped against Atty. Favorito and Mr. Calda, therefore, rings empty.[70]
Such finding was affirmed by the OCA in its Memorandum dated
Liability of Arreola
on absence during office hours.
As
with the extortion charges against Atty. Favorito and
Calda, the Court finds no sufficient evidence to hold
Arreola administratively liable.
As
reported by Judge Estoesta:
x x x the charge against Ms. Amie Grace Arreola regarding her habit of leaving the office after logging-in found no concrete corroboration.
The interviewees were actually unanimous in saying that Ms. Arreola was not prone to such habit as she is always around the office. Ms. Arreola may have been known to fetch her son at a nearby school but she has always done so during lunch hours and after office hours.
As a matter of fact, at a time when
the MeTC was stricken by a debilitating brown-out
schedule in the afternoon sometime [in] July 2006, Ms. Arreola
was still around, having been one of the skeletal force who volunteered to stay
on. The undersigned has personally seen
her around
As a matter of fact, several random
checks on Ms. Arreola by the undersigned herself
revealed that she has always been around at the OCC and at Branch 30 where she
was re-assigned as Branch Clerk of Court.
At times, personal visits were made, interspersed by telephone calls
between
Needless to say, therefore, the
charge against Ms. Arreola is certainly without
basis.[72]
The
OCA agreed with the said finding and likewise recommended the dismissal of the
charges against Arreola.[73]
It
is well-settled that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof
necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. The complainant has the
burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint.
That is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, what will prevail is that
respondent has regularly performed his or her duties.[74] Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures
and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on,
and charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[75]
Since
there is no proof, apart from the allegations of the letter-complaint, to hold
Atty. Favorito, Calda and Arreola liable for the afore- stated charges against them,
the Court deems it proper to dismiss said charges for lack of merit.
Other matters.
In
view of the initial findings of Investigating Judge Estoesta
that Siwa was remiss in her duty of transcribing
stenographic notes assigned to her, the OCA is hereby directed to conduct an
audit investigation on Siwa's transcription of
stenographic notes to determine the full extent of the notes she failed to
transcribe on time. If warranted, such
matter shall be treated as a separate case to be given a new docket number and
assigned to another ponente for evaluation.
The
OCA should also report on the status of the complaint filed by Atty. Morales
which the Court received on March 31, 2005, the complaint of Isabel Siwa dated April 12, 2005, and the letter-complaint of
Atty. Favorito together with other MeTC employees which the Court received on March 28, 2005,
against DCA Dela Cruz, regarding the spot
investigation conducted on March 16, 2005 regarding this case.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Isabel Siwa, Court
Stenographer of Branch 16, Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, GUILTY of
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and is FINED in the
amount of P30,000.00 to be deducted from the money value of her leave
credits which was set aside per Resolution dated October 12, 2005 in A.M No.
12096-Ret. entitled Application for Retirement Benefits under Section 13-A
of R.A. No. 8291 of Ms. Isabel A. Siwa, Court
Stenographer II, MeTC, Manila, Branch 16.
Atty. Henry P. Favorito,
Clerk of Court of the Office of the Clerk of Court is REPRIMANDED for
his failure to supervise the lending and rediscounting activites
of Siwa which took place in the court's
premises. The extortion charges against
him are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The
charges against Atty. Miguel Morales, former Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 17, are DISMISSED
for insufficiency of evidence.
Deputy Court Administrator Reuben de la Cruz is advised to be more
circumspect in the performance of his duties.
The
charges against William
Calda, Administrative Officer of the Office of the Clerk of Court,
and Amie Grace Arreola,
formerly Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 4 now Clerk of Court of Branch 30,
both of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, are DISMISSED for lack
of merit.
The
Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to conduct an audit
investigation on Isabel Siwa's
transcription of stenographic notes in view of the finding of Judge Ma. Theresa
Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta in her Investigation Report
dated
SO
ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO 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 |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
[1] A.M. No. P-08-2519, rollo, p. 2.
[2] A.M. No. P-08-2519, rollo, pp. 4-23, 70-71.
[3] Per Resolution dated
[4] Section 1. No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
[5] Section 2. The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.
[6] Section 3. (1) The privacy of
communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order
of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed
by law.
(2) Any evidence
obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.
[7] A.M. No. P-08-2519, rollo, p. 37.
[8] A.M. No. P-08-2519, rollo, p. 50.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] A.M. No. P-08-2519, rollo, pp. 25-27.
[13]
[14] See October 12, 2005 Resolution in
A.M. No. 12097-Ret. (Application for Separation Benefits under Section 11,
Paragraph (b) of R.A. No. 8291 of Atty. Miguel C. Morales, Clerk of Court III, MeTC, Manila, Branch 17). There were two other pending cases against
Morales at the time of the Resolution: A.M. No. P-05-1950 and A.M. OCA IPI No.
03-1555-P. A Resolution was promulgated
on P2,000.00 while A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1555-P was
dismissed on
[15] A.M. No. P-08-2520, rollo, pp. 1-2.
[16] A.M. No. P-08-2520, rollo, pp. 3, 10.
[17]
[18] See OCA Memorandum dated
[19] A.M. No. P-08-2520, rollo, pp. 22.
[20]
[21] A.M. No. P-08-2520, rollo, pp. 15-19.
[22] OCA Report dated
[23] See Third Division's
[24] A.M. No. P-08-2520, rollo, p. 47.
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28] A.M. No. P-08-2519, rollo, p. 55.
[29] A.M. No. P-08-2519, rollo, pp. 68-69.
[30]
[31] A.M. No. P-08-2519, rollo, pp. 70-71.
[32]
[33]
[34] A.M. No. P-08-2519, rollo, pp. 72-75.
[35]
[36]
[37] A.M. No. P-08-2519, rollo, pp. 122-124.
[38] A.M. No. P-08-2519, rollo, pp. 124.
[39]
[40]
[41] Re:
Anonymous Complaint Against Angelina Casareno-Rillorta,
Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Clerk of Court, A.M. No. P-05-2063,
[42] Salazar v. Limeta,
A.M. No. P-04-1908,
[43] Sec.
2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for
any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.
[44] Caballes
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292,
[45] G.R. No. 107383,
[46] Caballes
v. Court of Appeals, supra note 44.
[47] A.M. No. P-08-2519, rollo, p. 5.
[48] Affidavit of Atty. Ryan A. Tuazon dated
[49] Caballes v. Court of Appeals, supra note 44.
[50]
[51]
[52] People
v. Tudtud,
G.R. No. 144037,
[53] Caballes v. Court of Appeals, supra note 44; People v. Tudtud,
supra note 52.
[54] People
v. Tudtud, supra
note 52, at 168-169.
[55] A.M. No. P-08-2520, rollo, pp. 17-18.
[56] Benavidez v. Vega, A.M. No.
P-01-1530,
[57] Biyaheros
Mart Livelihood Association, Inc. v. Cabusao, Jr.,
A.M. No. P-93-811,
[58] Anonymous
v. Grande, AM No. P-06-2114,
[59] Biyaheros
Mart Livelihood Association, Inc. v. Cabusao, Jr.,
supra note 57, at 713.
[60] A.M. No. P-08-2520, rollo, p. 05.
[61]
[62]
[63] See Report, A.M. No. P-08-2519,
rollo, pp. 73-74. Crim.
Case Nos. 257579-CR; 344073-CR; 311894-896-CR; Civil Case Nos. 159097-CV;
168109-CV.
[64] See Report, A.M. No. P-08-2519,
rollo, pp. 75, 89. Crim.
Case Nos. 257579-CR; 344073-CR; 311894-896-CR; Civil Case Nos. 159097-CV;
168109-CV.
[65] Baron
v. Anacan,
A.M. No. P-04-1816,
[66]
[67] A.M. No. P-08-2519, rollo, pp. 123-124.
[68] A.M. No. P-08-2520, rollo, p. 17.
[69] 2002 Manual for Clerks of Court,
Chapter VII, D(1).
[70] A.M. No. P-08-2519, rollo, pp. 71-72.
[71]
[72] A.M. No. P-08-2519, rollo, p. 72.
[73]
[74] Re:
Anonymous Complaint Against Angelina Casareno-Rillorta, supra note 41.
[75] Mikrostar
Industrial Corp. v. Mabalot, A.M. No. P-05-2097,