THIRD DIVISION
|
Rodolfo B.
Baygar, Sr., Complainant, - versus - Judge Lilian
D. Panontongan and Process Server AladinO V. TiraÑa, both of THE Municipal Trial Court, Binangonan, Rizal, Respondents. |
|
A.M. No. MTJ-08-1699 (Formerly
OCA IPI No. 04-1610-MTJ) Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson, CARPIO,* CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: March 17, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is an administrative complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 filed by complainant Rodolfo B. Baygar, Sr., against respondents Judge Lilian D. Panontongan (Judge Panontongan) and Process Server Aladino V. Tiraña (Process Server Tiraña), both of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Binangonan, Rizal.
On 11 August 2002, complainant and a certain Arsenio Larga
(Larga) were apprehended for violation of Presidential Decree No. 449 (Cockfighting Law of 1974), in
relation to Presidential Decree No. 1602 (Prescribing Stiffer Penalties on Illegal Gambling), by three
policemen, namely, Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1) Arnel Anore, Police Officer (PO)
Oligario Salvador, and Ian Gatchalian Voluntad.
The criminal complaint against complainant was docketed as Criminal Case
No. 02-0843 and raffled to MTC, Branch 1 of Binangonan, Rizal.
Complainant
and Larga were brought to the Police Precinct of Binangonan, Rizal, for
detention. Larga was released in the
morning of P2,300.00 to
PO Reynaldo Gonzaga.[1] Complainant was released only in the
afternoon of the same day after his wife Wilfreda Baygar (Wilfreda), upon the
instructions of PO Joaquin Arcilla (Arcilla), paid P3,020.00[2] to
respondent Process Server Tiraña.
It
so happened that in the afternoon of the same day, 12 August 2002, respondent
Judge Panontongan already promulgated her Decision in Criminal Case No.
02-0843, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, finding accused Rodolfo Bactol
Baygar guilty beyond reasonable doubt and appreciating in his favor voluntary
plea of guilt, accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED (P300.00)
PESOS each and the Jail Warden of Binangonan Municipal Jail, Binangonan, Rizal
is hereby directed to release the accused, Rodolfo Bactol Baygar unless he
should be detained further for some other legal cause/s.[3]
Following his release from
police custody, complainant filed on 17 September 2002 before the Office of the
Ombudsman a complaint for arbitrary detention and violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act No. 3019, against five police officers; Atty. Fernando B. Mendoza,
a lawyer from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO); and respondents Judge
Panontongan and Process Server Tiraña of the MTC. The complaint was docketed as
OMB-P-C-02-0984-I.
In a Memorandum[4] dated
On
According to complainant, respondents
Judge Panontongan and Process Server Tiraña of the MTC, in conspiracy with PO
Arcilla and Atty. Mendoza of PAO, “orchestrated and made it appear that he
pleaded guilty to a crime for which he was detained, during the simulated arraignment
in the sala of [respondent Judge Panontongan], when in truth and in fact
he did not attend any proceeding.”
Complainant further averred that his wife Wilfreda gave P3,020.00
to respondent Tiraña in what they understood to be bail for his temporary liberty;
only to find out later that he was released because respondent Judge
Panontongan had already rendered a Decision dated 12 August 2002 in Criminal
Case No. 02-0843 finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, appreciating in
his favor his voluntary plea of guilt, and sentencing him to pay a fine in the
amount of P300.00.
On
In her Counter-Affidavit,[6]
respondent Judge Panontongan substantially denied the allegations of
complainant and his wife, averring that they were false and untrue and intended
only to harass her. The arraignment of
complainant actually took place on
Respondent Process Server Tiraña in his
Comment adopted the afore-mentioned Counter-Affidavit of his co-respondent
Judge Panontongan. He also categorically
denied the allegation that he received P3,020.00 as bail of complainant.
After
initial evaluation of the pleadings filed by the parties, the Court referred[7]
the administrative matter against respondents Judge Panontongan and Process
Server Tiraña to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Rizal
for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Investigating
Judge Bernelito R. Fernandez (Judge Fernandez) reported:
During the initial hearing of the Complaint before the undersigned, both parties agreed that they would just submit the matter for resolution considering that there were no new matters that need to be ventilated and that all documents and pleadings already form part of the records of this complaint. x x x.[8]
So
without further hearings, Investigating Judge Fernandez evaluated the
pleadings, affidavits, and other documents submitted by the parties, as well as
the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, and found that respondents Judge
Panontongan and Process Server Tiraña should be held administratively
accountable for what happened to complainant.
Investigating Judge Fernandez submitted the following recommendations[9]:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the undersigned Investigating Judge hereby respectfully recommends the following ---
For respondent Judge Lilian G.
Dinulos-Panontongan – a REPRIMAND and to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00);
and,
For respondent Process Server Aladino Tiraña – DISMISSAL from the service. Further, let the appropriate Criminal Information be filed against said respondent for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.[10]
On
In view thereof, it is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:
1. Judge Lilian G. Dinulos-Panontongan, Acting Presiding Judge, MTC, Branch 1, Binangonan, Rizal, be SUSPENDED from office for one (1) month with a STERN WARNING that a similar infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely;
2. Aladino Tiraña, Process Server, MTC, Branch 1, Binangonan, Rizal be DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations;
3. Call the attention of Agnes S. Mechilina, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1, Binangonan, Rizal (1) for being too lax in the supervision of court personnel in their failure to complete the entries required of (sic) in the Minutes of the hearing and other court records; and (2) failure to ensure the reliability of court records reflecting court proceedings with a STERN WARNING that a similar infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
4. As requested, the Office of the Ombudsman be furnished with a copy of the Decision in this administrative matter for its information and appropriate action.[12]
On
After
an examination of the records, the Court affirms the findings and conclusions
of the OCA, but modifies the recommended penalties.
As to the liability of respondent Process Server Tiraña:
There is no reason for this Court to
disturb the findings of Investigating Judge Fernandez, affirmed by the OCA, as
regards respondent Process Server Tiraña.
Respondent Process Server Tiraña’s
plain denial of the acts imputed to him cannot overcome the categorical and
positive declarations made by complainant and his wife, Wilfreda, that said
respondent demanded money from Wilfreda with the promise that he would assist
in facilitating complainant’s release from jail.
In her Affidavit,[16]
Wilfreda clearly established the participation of respondent Process Server
Tiraña in the corrupt scheme. To quote:
9. Na pagkaraan nito, na sinabi sa akin ni Police Officer
Joaquin Arcilla na puwede daw na P3,000.00 na lamang ang aking
ibayad, at matapos na ako ay pumayag,
kaagad nilang ginawa and ilang papel at ito ay ipinadala niya sa akin sa
Municipal Trial Court ng Binangonan Branch 1 at doon ko daw ibayad and pera;
10. Na pagdating ko sa korte mga bandang alas 11:30 ng umaga, pinakita ko kay G. Allan Terana ang papel na ibinigay sa akin ni Police Officer Joaquin Arcilla at ako ay bumalik na lang sa hapon dahil wala pa ang kanilang clerk of court.
11. Na pagbalik ko ng hapon,
hiningi na ni Allan Terana ang pera na may halagang P3,000.00. Bukod pa dito, ako ay hiningian pa niya ng
karagdagang P20.00 kung kayat P3,020.00 ang kabuuang perang
naibigay ko sa kanya.
12. Na matapos kong maghintay na may dalawang oras, binigay na sa akin ni Allan Terana ang kopya ng Desisyon na dapat kong dalhin sa jail para makalabas na ang aking mister ko.[17]
The statements made by complainant
and his wife, Wilfreda, in their Affidavits present a consistent and coherent
narration of the events which immediately preceded complainant’s release from
jail. These constitute substantial
evidence against respondent Process Server Tiraña. In an administrative proceeding, such as this
case, only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required.[18]
In comparison, respondent Process Server Tiraña merely denied the allegations against him but failed to set forth in his Comment[19] the substance of the matters upon which he relies to support his denial. It is settled that denial is inherently a weak defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving and is with nil evidentiary value.[20]
Respondent Process Server Tiraña
clearly stepped beyond the bounds of propriety when he asked for and received
from complainant’s wife, Wilfreda, the amount of P3,020.00, and then
gave her the assurance that complainant would be released from jail. In
so doing, respondent Process Server Tiraña created the impression that he had
the power and authority to discharge complainant from detention. Worse still, the MTC Decision, which declared
complainant guilty after entering a plea of guilty during the arraignment,
merely imposed a fine of P300.00 against complainant. The said decision was handed down in the
afternoon of
The Court cannot overemphasize that
the conduct required of court personnel must always be beyond reproach and
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to free them from any
suspicion that may taint the judiciary. They shall endeavor to discourage
wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue
patronage. As a court employee, it therefore behooves respondent Process
Server Tiraña to act with more circumspection and to steer clear of any
situation which may cast the slightest suspicion on his conduct.
Respondent Process Server Tiraña’s
solicitation of money from complainant and his wife Wilfreda in exchange for
complainant’s liberty violates Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel which took effect on
SECTION 1. Court personnel shall not use their official position to secure unwarranted benefits, privileges or exemption for themselves or for others.
SECTION 2. Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any explicit or implicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions.” (Underscoring supplied.)
By demanding and receiving P3,020.00
from complainant’s wife, Wilfreda, respondent committed an act of impropriety
which immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the judiciary and the
people’s confidence in it.
A public office is a public trust,
public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people,
serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act
with patriotism and justice and lead modest lives. Indeed, the image of the court of justice is
necessarily mirrored in the conduct even of minor employees; thus, they must
preserve the judiciary’s good name and standing as a true temple of justice. This Court has often reminded its personnel of
the high norm of public service it requires:
[W]e condemn and would never countenance any conduct, act, or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary. Every one connected in the task of delivery of justice, from the lowliest employee to the highest official, must at all times be fully aware of the sacramental nature of their function.[21]
Respondent Process Server Tiraña
clearly failed to observe the standard of conduct and behavior required of an
employee in the judiciary, and he cannot avoid responsibility for his
acts. However, the Court finds the
recommendation of dismissal by the OCA to be too harsh, it appearing that this
is respondent Process Server Tiraña’s first offense in his 21 years in government service. Suspension for one year without pay is
already sufficient penalty given the circumstances.
Liability
of Respondent Judge Panontongan
The
Court likewise agrees in the conclusion made by both Investigating Judge
Fernandez and the OCA that respondent Judge Panontongan had no direct
participation “in what appears to be manipulation or misrepresentation of the
records of proceedings during the session of
Asserting that Judge Panontongan was also in on the scheme, complainant
presented (1) the Counter-Affidavit of Atty. Mendoza, the PAO lawyer assigned
to represent complainant in Criminal Case No. 02-0843, in which he attested
that he had no personal knowledge of the alleged arraignment of complainant
held on 12 August 2002; (2) Atty. Mendoza’s copy of the 12 August 2002 court
calendar which showed that Criminal Case No. 02-0843 was not included among
those scheduled for arraignment; and (3) Certification[22]
of the Jail Warden of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, Region IV, stating
that he escorted seven detainees to their
court hearings on 12 August 2002 but complainant was not one of them. Complainant also pointed out that Criminal
Case No. 02-0843 appeared to have been merely added on the third (3rd)
page of the calendar of cases for hearing on
Respondent
Judge Panontongan, however, asserted that complainant’s arraignment did take
place on
[J]udicial notice can be had to the effect that Trial Calendars were usually prepared and distributed to the Prosecutor’s Office and Public Attorney’s Office day(s) ahead of the scheduled hearings, and if there be any case(s) omitted thereto or been requested to be included in the court calendar for the day, all the same were naturally included/inserted by handwritten note in the type written court calendar.
Criminal Case No. 02-0843 x x x was filed in the morning of August 12, 2002, and therefore, it was naturally not among those typewritten cases scheduled for hearing on that day because the court calendar has already been prepared, and its inclusion x x x was merely prompted by the request made. Thus, x x x the absence of the same in the trial calendar in the possession of the Public Attorney’s Office x x x which has already been given day ahead thereof.
x x x x
[T]hat judicial notice can also [be] had to the effect that Minutes of Hearing were likewise prepared ahead of the scheduled date of hearing, and were based on the already typewritten court calendar. Thus, as the said case against complainant below was merely and urgently included in the court calendar as requested, the Minutes of Hearing for the same must hurriedly be prepared and of course, any variance will be observable.
[N]ot in all instances had counsels been able to sign minutes of hearing nor certificates of arraignment, for any reason, and such omission which may have also been happening in other places cannot and should not be a cause to hold the court at fault.[23]
The burden of substantiating the
charges in an administrative proceeding against court employees falls on
complainant, who must be able to prove the allegations in the complaint with
substantial evidence. Complainant failed
to substantiate the allegation in his complaint that respondent Judge
Panontongan maneuvered and orchestrated the proceedings including, but not
limited to, the proceedings resulting in the release of complainant from
detention. Complainant did not present
any proof directly connecting respondent Judge Panontongan to the demand for
and receipt of money in exchange for complainant’s release from jail. The basic rule is that mere allegation
is not evidence, and is not equivalent to proof.[24]
Complainant’s presentation of Atty.
Mendoza’s copy of the
It is also worthy to note that the
Decision dated 12 August 2002 of respondent Judge Panontongan recounts that
complainant was properly arraigned, to wit:
When arraigned in a language known to him, assisted by counsel de officio Atty. Fernando Mendoza, accused Rodolfo Bactol Baygar entered a plea of guilty to the charge.[25]
In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, the presumption that respondent Judge Panontongan regularly performed
her duties will prevail. In the absence of cogent proof, bare allegations
of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official functions.
Administrative complaints
leveled against judges must always be examined with a discriminating eye, for their
consequential effects are, by their nature, highly penal, such that respondents
stand to face the sanction of dismissal and/or disbarment.[26] A judge enjoys the presumption of regularity
in the performance of his function no less than any other
public officer.[27] The
presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative
evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.[28] The presumption, however, prevails until it
is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to
the contrary. Unless the presumption is
rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every
reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in case of
doubt as to an officer’s act being lawful or unlawful, construction should be
in favor of its lawfulness.[29]
Thus, the Court cannot give credence
to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation.
The Court further quotes with
approval the following observations of the OCA:
[R]espondent Judge presides over Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1, Binangonan, Rizal merely in an acting capacity, she being the presiding judge of Branch 2, same court. Further, records with the Statistical Reports Division, this Office, reveal that there were nine hundred twenty-six (926) and six hundred twenty-four (624) cases pending with Branches 1 and 2, respectively, as of August 2002. Taking the workload into consideration, it would be humanely impossible for a judge to remember the respective dates when each of the accused and/or parties to the cases pending before the two (2) salas took place. Corrolarily, a judge will have to rely on the records of the case when signing orders and/or decisions similar to that in issue (i.e., a simple decision issued on the basis of a plea of guilty of the accused appearing on the certificate of arraignment).[30]
Nonetheless, judges must not only be
fully cognizant of the state of their dockets; likewise, they must keep a
watchful eye on the level of performance and conduct of the court personnel
under their immediate supervision who are primarily employed to aid in the
administration of justice. The leniency
of a judge in the administrative supervision of his employees is an undesirable
trait. It is therefore necessary that
judges should exercise close supervision over court personnel.[31] Respondent Judge Panontongan must therefore
be warned to be more circumspect in her supervision of court personnel, such as
respondent Process Server Tiraña.
As to the liability of Clerk of Court Agnes S. Mechilina
The Court deems it imperative to call the attention of Agnes S. Mechilina, Clerk of Court of the MTC, Branch 1, Binangonan, Rizal, for being too lax in the supervision of court personnel which resulted in incomplete entries in the following documents:
1. The Certificate of Arraignment lacks the following entries: name of the prosecutor; name and signature of the counsel for the accused; and signature of the Clerk of Court who issued the very Certificate of Arraignment.
2. Minutes
of
3. Certificate of Notice which does not bear the signature of the prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.
As what happened in this case, incomplete entries in court records and
documents can easily cause confusion and raise doubts on the facts contained
therein and, consequently, undermine the reliability of said records and
documents. Ultimately, it is the Clerk of Court’s responsibility to ensure that
such records and documents are complete and well-kept.
The Clerk of Court is an essential
officer in any judicial system. His office is the nucleus of activities,
adjudicative and administrative. As such, he must be reminded that his
administrative functions are just as vital to the prompt and proper
administration of justice. He is charged with the efficient recording,
filing and management of court records, besides having administrative
supervision over court personnel. Clerks of Court play a key role in the
complement of the court and cannot be permitted to slacken on their jobs under
one pretext or another.[32]
WHEREFORE, the
Court hereby RESOLVES to:
1. SUSPEND for a period of ONE (1) YEAR
without pay respondent process server Aladino V. Tiraña, commencing upon notice
of this Decision;
2. WARN Judge Lilian D. Panontongan to be more circumspect in her
duties;
3. CALL THE ATTENTION of Agnes S. Mechilina, Clerk of Court of the
Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1, Binangonan, Rizal for (1) being too lax in the
supervision of court personnel for their failure to complete the entries
required in the Minutes of the Hearing and other court records; and (2) failing
to ensure the reliability of court records reflecting court proceedings, with a
STERN WARNING that a similar
infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely; and
4. FURNISH the Office of the
Ombudsman with a copy of the Decision in this administrative matter for its
information and appropriate action.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
|
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Per
Special Order No. 568, dated
[1]
According
to complainant, the police officers offered to facilitate his and Larga’s bail
bonds, requiring them to pay the amount of P1,000.00 each, plus an
additional amount of P150.00.
Since Larga had no means to pay for his bail, he requested complainant
to advance the amount for him, promising that he would reimburse complainant
later. Complainant’s wife, Wilfreda,
then had a certain Feliciano Gaa, complainant’s neighbor, deliver the amount of
P2,300.00 to the Police Precinct.
Complainant was brought by police officers Anore,
[2] PO Arcilla originally told
complainant’s wife, Wilfreda, that P4,000.00 was needed, but later
agreed to the reduced amount of P3,000.00. When Wilfreda personally brought the P3,000.00
to respondent Process Server Tiraña, the latter asked for additional P20.00.
[3] Rollo, p. 60.
[4]
[5] Id.
at 109.
[6] Id.
at 114-115.
[7] Id.
at 177.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Id.
at 261-272.
[12]
[13] Id.
at 274.
[14] Id.
at 275.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] Mamba v. Garcia, 412 Phil. 1, 10 (2001).
[19] Rollo, pp. 14-15.
[20] Jugueta v. Estacio, A.M. No. CA-04-17-P,
[21]
[22] Rollo, p. 18.
[23] Rollo, pp. 160-161.
[24] Navarro v. Cerezo, A.M. No. P-05-1962,
[25] Rollo, p. 7.
[26] Dayag v.
Judge Gonzales, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1903,
[27] People v. Belaro, 367 Phil. 91, 100 (1999). See also Rule 131, Section 3(m) of the Rules of Court.
[28] People
v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 106025,
[29] Magsucang v. Judge Balgos, 446 Phil.
217, 224-225 (2003).
[30] Rollo, p. 270.
[31] Dysico v. Judge Dacumos, 330 Phil. 834, 842 (1996).
[32] In
Re: Report on the Judicial and Financial Audit conducted in the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities,