Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
|
ROSALINDA C.
AGUILAR, |
|
A.M. No. P-07-2392 |
|
Complainant, |
|
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2579-P) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUNO,
C.J., |
|
|
|
QUISUMBING, |
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO,* |
|
|
|
CARPIO, |
|
|
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
- versus - |
|
|
|
|
|
CARPIO
MORALES, |
|
|
|
TINGA,* |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, |
|
|
|
VELASCO, Jr., |
|
|
|
NACHURA, |
|
|
|
DE CASTRO, |
|
|
|
BRION, and |
|
RONBERTO B.
VALINO, |
|
PERALTA, JJ. |
|
Deputy Sheriff,
Regional Trial Court, |
|
|
|
Branch 70, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
February
25, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - x
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
Rosalinda C.
Aguilar (complainant) charged Ronberto B. Valino (respondent), Deputy Sheriff
IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 70 of Pasig City, of grave
misconduct and dishonesty.
In a letter to
the Court dated P866,828.90.[1] On
Yesterday, the court verbally instructed the
Sheriff of this branch, Ronberto B. Valino, through the court interpreter to
report for work today at
For reasons initially
unknown to this court, a representative just hand[ed] over this morning a copy
of the Sheriff's Report dated
Accordingly, Sheriff
Ronberto B. Valino is hereby directed to show cause within seventy-two (72) hours
from notice why he should not be cited in contempt and administratively charged
for insubordination for failure to comply with the verbal order of the court
before he proceeds to the auction venue.
Further, he is directed
to explain within the same period why he has not complied with Section 14, Rule
39 of the Rules of Court, relative to submission of a periodic report on the
writ of execution.
Considering the pendency
of an Urgent Omnibus Motion and the need to thresh out some issues in said
motion and for failure of the Branch Sheriff to appear as verbally directed by
the Court, the Court hereby orders the Sheriff to STOP the scheduled auction
sale of the property at 10:00 o'clock in the morning today until further orders
from the Court and the resolution on the pending incident.[3]
Judge Pahimna
then instructed Process Server Sonny B. Reyes (Reyes) to serve a copy of the
Order to respondent and to verify whether or not an auction sale would be
conducted. Reyes arrived around P6,680,500.00, during an alleged auction sale held on
In his Comment
dated April 23, 2007, respondent denied the charges against him and claimed
that: he was not aware of the Urgent Verified Omnibus Motion filed by
complainant which was set for hearing for February 14, 2007; he had to go home
at around noon of February 13 because of stomach pain; in the afternoon and
evening of that day, he did not receive any instruction from any staff of Branch
70; in the morning of February 14, he
proceeded directly to Pateros City Hall where the auction was to be conducted;
there he met Lee and at 10:00 o'clock in the morning the auction took place
with the son of Lee as the only bidder who offered a written bid on the property. Respondent further claimed that the
accusations were purely intended to harass him, because he did not succumb to
complainant's attempt to bribe him in consideration of his deferring the
auction sale. He also denied the
allegations of Reyes and Galvez and questioned the interest in the case of
Judge Pahimna, who issued the order dated
On
In her
Compliance dated
In the
Resolution dated
The OCA in its
Report[9] dated
[r]espondent's introduction in evidence of the
falsified Certificate of Sale purporting that an auction sale was actually
conducted, although in fact it was not, shows an intent to disregard flagrantly
the law and constitutes grave misconduct that corrodes respect for the courts. The same likewise indicates a predisposition
to lie and deceive and amounts to dishonesty. x x x[10]
The OCA gave
weight to the finding of the investigating judge that complainant's witnesses
were more credible. All of complainant's
seven witnesses categorically denied the conduct of public auction at
The Court finds
the report and recommendation of the OCA to be proper.
It is basic that
in administrative proceedings, the burden of proving, by substantial evidence,
the truthfulness of the allegations on the complaint rests on the complainant.[13] Only substantial evidence, or that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion, is required.[14] In this case, the Court finds that
complainant was able to satisfactorily discharge such burden.
Complainant,
with her seven witnesses who were all court employees, was able to show that no
auction actually took place on February 14, 2007 at the Pateros Municipal Hall,
as purported by respondent.
Reyes, affirming
the contents of his Process Server's Return, testified before the Investigating
Judge that: he arrived at the Pateros Municipal Hall before 10:00 o'clock in
the morning and there met Galvez who said that she had not seen respondent;
they asked the guard if there was an auction scheduled for 10:00 o'clock in the
morning, and the latter answered in the negative; they also found out that
there was no notice for an auction at the time posted in the area; he waited at
the lobby until 12 noon and, upon failing to see respondent or any party, Reyes
called Judge Pahimna to ask if he could already leave the place.[15]
Galvez also
testified that Judge Pahimna called her at 9:40 in the morning, instructing her
to go to the entrance of the Municipal Hall of Pateros; that she asked the
Building Custodian and the policeman stationed at the hall if a certain Sheriff
Valino approached them regarding an auction sale to be held that 10:00 o'clock
in the morning, to which they answered in the negative; then she received
another call from Judge Pahimna telling her to meet Reyes.[16]
Building
Custodian Ben Hernandez (Hernandez) likewise testified that on February 14, he
was at his desk in front of the lobby from
To these, respondent merely claimed that
the reason Reyes did not see him was probably because there were so many people
at the municipal hall at that time, as there was a job fair,[18] and
that he saw Hernandez that day, but Hernandez' table was far from the entrance
and near the stairs.[19] Reyes insisted, however, that he knew
respondent and would have found him even in a crowd.[20] While Hernandez maintained that it was
impossible for him not to see if an auction was conducted at that place, since
he was alert to the goings-on in said place and if there were people gathered,
since it was his job to be aware of such activities as building custodian.[21]
Rolando Alejandro, (Alejandro) a
Collector at the Treasurer's Office, affirmed his affidavit dated March 7, 2007
before the Investigating Judge and testified that although he signed as a
witness to the auction sale which purportedly took place at 10 o'clock in the
morning of February 14, 2007 at the main entrance of the Municipal Hall of
Pateros, the truth was that he was never a witness to such auction, as he was
in fact absent that day as reflected in his Daily Time Record.[22] He explained that on February 15 or 16, 2007
at around 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock in the afternoon, a woman approached him at
their office and asked him to sign a document, which he signed not knowing what
it was all about. When asked by Galvez
on
When asked by
the Investigating Judge why he signed the document not knowing what it was
about, he answered that at the time the woman approached him, he was in a hurry
as he was on his way to the comfort room to relieve himself.[24] Alejandro also testified that he did not know
respondent or was not even familiar with his name; and that it was the first
time, during the investigation, that he saw him.[25] He claimed further that the woman who asked
him to sign the document went back to him after he executed his March 7
affidavit and asked him to affirm that he really witnessed the auction sale in
exchange for P10,000.00, a P500 cell phone load and an authority
to handle one of her computer shops, which he declined.[26]
When the
Investigating Judge asked respondent what he could say to Alejandro's
testimony, respondent's only response, however, was:
SHERIFF VALINO:
No
comment.
COURT:
Mr.
Valino hindi mo sya tatanungin, hindi mo sya iko-confront?
SHERIFF VALINO:
Hindi
na po.[27]
Court
Interpreter Rachel de Guzman also testified that she texted respondent in the
afternoon of
Respondent for his part merely denied
the allegations of the witnesses and was adamant in his claim that an auction
actually took place at the time and place stated on the certificate of
sale.
When asked by the Investigating Judge,
however, why he did not report for one week after the alleged auction sale,
respondent only said that he had a flu.[31] The Investigating Judge also noted that respondent
did not give complainant a computation of how much she was supposed to pay
before the auction.[32] And when the Investigating Judge asked
respondent why he sold the property at P6 million when the amount
payable, as ruled by the CA, was only P866,000.00 plus interest,
respondent only said that he based his computation on the decision of the trial
court. He admitted, though, that he was
aware of the CA Decision, rendered almost a year before the auction, modifying
that of the RTC.[33]
Respondent presented
his witness, Rainer V. Galsim (Galsim), electrician and driver of Lee, who said
that he accompanied Lee and her son Hector, while he (Galsim) stayed at a
distance. When asked about the details
of the auction sale, Galsim could only testify, however, as follows:
COURT:
x
x x bakit nyo nalaman na auction sale yung nakita ninyo?
MR. GALSIM:
Sinabi
lang po sa akin.
COURT:
Sino
ang nagsabi sayo?
MR. GALSIM:
Si
Ma'am
COURT:
Ano
ho bang nakita ninyo?
MR. GALSIM:
Basta
narinig ko...doon ko po nakita si Sheriff po nung pagdating namin tapos
nagtatanong x x x.
x x x x
COURT:
Nandoon
kayo hanggang alas-diyes?
MR. GALSIM:
Opo
pero doon sa may harapan ng building.
COURT:
Saan
doon sa building na iyon?
MR. GALSIM:
Sa
harapan po ng building.[34]
x x x x
COURT:
All
these people who testified today, x x x Pito sila na nagsabi na hindi nakita
si Sheriff Valino. Ikaw lang ang
nagsasabi na nakita mo siya at nandoon ka ng
MR. GALSIM:
Opo,
nandoon ho kami.
COURT:
Anong
ginawa mo doon?
MR. GALSIM:
Kasama
ko lang po si ano dahil nagpa-alalay lang po.
COURT:
Ano
nga ang nakita mo? Ang tinatanong ko sa'yo ano ang nakita mo at paano yung
ginawang auction sale. Sige nga, sabihin
mo nga sa akin.
MR. GALSIM:
Basta
narinig ko lang po yung auction sale na salita at saka no bidders.
COURT:
Anong
narinig mo?
MR. GALSIM:
Auction
sale... auction sale...
COURT:
Anong
sinabi? Pano sinabi iyon?
MR. GALSIM:
Isinigaw
po ni...sinabi ni...
COURT:
Isinigaw
niya?
MR. GALSIM:
Not
actually sigaw...
x x x x
COURT:
Sinu-sino
kayo nung mag-auction sale? Paanong
ginawa? Saan kayo nandoon? Nakaupo kayo?
Nakatayo kayo? Nasa harap kayo ng
building o nasaan kayo?
MR. GALSIM:
Nakatayo
lang po.
COURT:
Nakatayo
lang kayo, tapos? Paanong nangyari? Sige nga.
MR. GALSIM:
Nag-uusap
po silang ganon tapos nagsalita po si Sheriff ng auction sale tapos...
COURT:
Yun
lang ang sinabi niya, auction sale?
MR. GALSIM:
Yun
lang po.
COURT:
Tapos?
MR. GALSIM:
Tapos
nag-abot ng papel tapos wala na hindi ko na...
COURT:
Auction
sale lang tapos no bidder, tapos tapos na?
MR. GALSIM:
Opo.
x x x x
COURT:
Yung
bidder hindi nagsabi I'm bidding for so much? Ano pang nakita mo?
MR. GALSIM:
Wala
na, iyon lang po.
COURT:
Ganun
lang? Mukhang hindi ganon ang
auction sale ginawaga.
MR. GALSIM:
Actually,
hindi ko po talaga... Iyon lang po ang nakita ko, nagdrive lang po
ako, kasama lang, so yun lang po ang nalalaman ko kung ano yung auction
na sinasabi.[35]
Based on the foregoing, the Investigating Judge correctly
concluded that the presumption that respondent regularly performed his official
duties was rebutted by complainant's positive and unwavering documentary and
testimonial evidence against him.[36]
As a rule, the evaluation by the
Investigating Judge of the credibility of witnesses is accorded due respect,
even finality, by this Court since the Judge was in a better position to pass
judgment on the same, having personally heard them when they testified and
observed their deportment and manner of testifying.[37] Considering that the conclusion of the
Investigating Judge is supported by the records, the Court finds no reason to
depart from said rule.
The OCA also correctly observed that
complainant's witnesses are not party to nor do they have an interest in the
case, still they pursued the case with tenacity, a fact which bolsters their
credibility. Respondent, meanwhile, is a
party to the case; and Galsim is employed by Lee who was supposed to have won
in the auction sale.
The Court also notes that respondent
admitted not giving complainant a copy of the computation of the amount they were
supposed to pay Lee before the auction sale.[38] The Writ of Execution issued by the Branch Clerk
of Court on November 27, 2006 also specifically mentions that the decision of
the RTC on April 12, 2005, ordering complainant to pay Lee the amount of P2,366,829.00
as unpaid balance of her obligation plus P50,000.00 as attorney's fees,
was appealed to the CA which modified the same and rendered a decision dated
October 10, 2005 ordering complainant to pay Lee only the amount of P866,829.00
plus legal interest.[39] Still, respondent sold the property for P6,680,500.00.[40]
The procedure undertaken by respondent
clearly ignored Sec. 9(a), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on the procedure for
execution of judgments for money, which states:
Sec. 9. Execution of judgments for
money, how enforced. ---
(a) Immediate payment on demand. --- The officer
shall enforce an execution of a judgment for money by demanding from the
judgment obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of
execution and all lawful fees. The
judgment obligor shall pay in cash, certified bank check payable to the
judgment obligee, or any other form of payment acceptable to the latter, the
amount of the judgment debt under proper receipt directly to the judgment
obligee or his authorized representative if present at the time of
payment. The lawful fees shall be handed
under proper receipt to the executing sheriff who shall turn over the said
amount within the same day to the clerk of court that issued the writ.
x x x x
For the foregoing acts, respondent is
clearly guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty.
Misconduct, as defined, was an
unacceptable behavior that transgresses the established rules of conduct for
public officers. To be considered as
grave and to warrant dismissal from the service, the misconduct must be grave,
serious, important, weighty, momentous and not trifling. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention
and not a mere error of judgment and must have a direct relation to and be
connected with the performance of his official duties amounting either to
maladministration or to willful, intentional neglect or failure to discharge
the duties of the office. There should
also be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were
corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law.[41]
In this case, Judge Pahimna and the
staff of Branch 70 exerted efforts to get in touch with respondent before the
scheduled auction sale, in order to stop him from conducting the same, in view
of issues that had to be threshed out first.
Respondent, however, suddenly could not be reached and for several days thereafter
was absent, allegedly because he had a flu.
The excuse he put forth for his absence and unavailability was truly
lame, and no other conclusion could be drawn other than that he had every
intent of undertaking a corrupt and illegal scheme of presenting a fictitious
auction, when none actually took place.
Respondent's acts also constitute
dishonesty, which is defined as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or
defraud; unworthiness; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack
of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.[42] He insists that an auction took place on
Both grave misconduct and dishonesty are
grave offenses which are punishable by dismissal even for the first offense.[43] It is also provided in the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service that if the respondent is found
guilty of two or more charges, the penalty to be imposed should be that
corresponding to the most serious charge or count, and the rest shall be
considered as aggravating circumstances.[44] Thus, even though this is respondent's first
offense in his 16 years of service in the judiciary, his dismissal from the
service is in order.
The Court has
always held that court personnel charged with the dispensation of justice, from
the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, bear a heavy responsibility in
insuring that their conduct is always beyond reproach. The preservation of the integrity of the
judicial process is of utmost importance; thus, all those occupying office in
the judiciary should at all times be aware that they are accountable to the
people. They must serve with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency and must always conduct
themselves with the highest degree of propriety and decorum and take utmost
care in avoiding incidents that degrade the judiciary and diminish the respect
and regard for the courts.[45]
Sheriffs in
particular are ranking officers of the court.
They play an important part in the administration of justice. In view of their exalted position as keepers
of the public faith, it is imperative that their conduct be geared towards
maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court.[46] By the very nature of their functions, sheriffs
are called upon to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence
and, above all, to be above suspicion.[47]
As respondent
failed in his duty to maintain the good name of the judiciary and as his
behavior erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the administration of
justice, he does not deserve to stay in the service any longer.
WHEREFORE, Ronberto B.
Valino, Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Pasig City is found GUILTY
of grave misconduct and dishonesty, for which he is DISMISSED from the
service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave
credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of
the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
(On official leave)
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C.
CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
(On
official leave)
|
Dante o. tinga Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
* On official leave.
[1] The
RTC Branch 70 decision dated April 12, 2005 ordered her to pay Lee the amount
of P2,366,829.20 plus P50,000.00
attorney's fees, which amount was reduced by the Court of Appeals however
to P866,828.90 plus interest,
upon appeal.
[2] Covered
by TCT Nos. 349195 and 340298.
[3] Rollo,
pp. 6-7.
[4] Rollo,
pp. 7-8.
[5]
[6] Rollo,
p. 54.
[7]
[8]
[9] Through
Court Administrator Jose P. Perez.
[10] Rollo,
p. 184.
[11]
[12] Rollo,
pp. 181, 184-185.
[13] Badoles-Algodon
v. Zaldivar, A.M. No. P-04-1818,
[14] Aranda,
Jr. v. Alvarez, A.M. No.
P-04-1889,
[15] Rollo,
pp. 102-107.
[16] Rollo,
pp. 111-114.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] Rollo,
p. 126, TSN,
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28] Rollo,
pp. 75, 95-96, TSN of Rachel G. de Guzman.
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34] Rollo,
pp. 141-143.
[35] Rollo,
pp. 144-147.
[36]
[37] Melecio
v. Tan, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1566,
[38] Rollo,
p. 136, TSN
[39]
[40]
[41] Castelo
v. Florendo, A.M. No. P-96-1179,
[42] Alabastro
v. Moncado, Sr., A.M. No.
P-04-1887, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 42; Re:Administrative Case for
Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, A.M. No. 2001-7-SC & No. 2001-8-SC,
July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 1.
[43] Sec.
52 (A) 1 & 3 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service.
[44] Sec.
55.
[45]
[46] Hofer
v. Tan, A.M. No. P-05-1990,
[47] Geolingo
v. Albayda, A.M. No. P-02-1660,