Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
EN BANC
In Re: FRAUDULENT RELEASE A.M. No. 2007-08-SC
OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF
JOSE LANTIN, former Presiding Present:
Judge, Municipal Trial Court,
San Felipe, Zambales. PUNO, C.J.,*
QUISUMBING,*
CARPIO,**
CARPIO
MORALES,
CHICO-NAZARIO,***
VELASCO,
JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
ABAD, JJ.
Promulgated:
October
9, 2009
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
Per
Curiam:
The subject matter of the instant
administrative proceeding is the fraud perpetrated against the Court by
dismissed Judge Jose C. Lantin of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in San
Felipe, Zambales and his cohorts involving PhP 1,552,437 representing his
retirement gratuity.
Lantin compulsorily retired on
September 24, 1998. At that time, he had
a pending administrative case docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-98-1153 entitled Huggland v. Lantin.
Subsequently on February 29, 2000,
the Court issued a Resolution forfeiting his retirement benefits including
leave credits. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered (a) finding respondent Judge Jose C. Lantin guilty of grave misconduct in office, gross dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and conduct unbecoming [of] a judge; (b) holding that respondent [Judge Lantin] should have been dismissed from the service had the compulsory age of retirement not overtaken this case; (c) forfeiting all his retirement benefits, including leave credits; and (d) disqualifying him from employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporation.[1] (Emphasis ours.)
Copies of said
Resolution were reportedly sent to the following:
Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo
Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Reynaldo Suarez
DCA Zenaida Elepaño
DCA Bernardo Ponferrada
Office of the Administrative Services (OAS)
Leave Division
Fiscal Management and Budget Office
Finance, Accounting, and Documentation
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
As culled
from the records, the offices that are mainly involved in the processing of
retirement claims are the Employee Welfare and Benefits Division (EWBD) headed
by Charlotte C. Labayani; Records Division (Records Control Center) headed by
Gloria C. Rosario; Employees Leave Division headed by Hermogena F. Bayani––all
of OAS-OCA; and the Docket and Clearance Division (Docket Division) of the
Legal Office, OCA headed by Atty. Vener B. Pimentel. The Employees Leave Division and the Records
Division denied having received the February 29, 2000 Court Resolution forfeiting
the retirement benefits of Lantin.
A certain Annie Key introduced herself as the
representative of Dolores Luzadas, who
was named the duly designated attorney-in-fact of Lantin per a Special Power of
Attorney (SPA) purportedly signed by Lantin.
Key filed the application for the retirement benefits of the former
judge with the EWBD under the OAS-OCA. Key’s
identity was not found in any record. The
application was referred to Cecilia C. De
Rivera, the officer handling
compulsory retirement applications of judges. De Rivera admitted that the application was
filed on June 29, 2006, a date confirmed by Charlotte C. Labayani, Chief
of the EWBD. Attached to the application was the SPA issued
in favor of Luzadas. The EWBD records, however,
reveal that the application was received on June 26, 2006, three days earlier.
De Rivera later asked Key to re-file the application using a newly prescribed
form, which was filed on August 10, 2006.
It turned
out that the SPA was subscribed on July 3, 2006 and before a notary public whose
commission had already expired. Per
investigation of the OAS-Supreme Court (SC), the SPA could not have been
received on June 29, 2007, since it was acknowledged before the notary public
on July 3, 2006. The OAS-SC concluded
that De Rivera had tampered with the application, considering that a photocopy
of it had erasures as to the date of receipt.[2] Noteworthy too is the fact that De Rivera did
not keep the original copy of the SPA.
According
to De Rivera, she informed Labayani of the belated filing. Allegedly on Labayani’s
instructions, she requested a Docket Clearance to ascertain if, due to the belated
filing, the claim could be rejected. Labayani
signed the request addressed to the Records Division under the OAS-OCA for
Lantin’s Service Records, clearance from the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC),
clearance from the Docket and Legal Division under the Legal Office of OCA, and
Certification of Regular Monthly Salary and Emoluments from the Financial
Management Office (FMO) of OCA.
Michelle P. Tuazon of the Docket and Clearance
Division, Legal Office, OCA, received the request for clearance on July 31,
2006. It reads:
x x x in favor of Hon. JOSE C. LANTIN, former Judge, Municipal Trial Court, San Felipe, Zambales, in connection with his claim for Compulsory Retirement benefits under RA 910, as amended effective September 24, 1998.
Tuazon verified the request and prepared the
Clearance Certificate dated August 7, 2006, signed by Atty. Vener B. Pimentel, the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Docket and
Legal Division. The certification indicated that the former judge had no
pending administrative case as of said date, and the certification was being
issued for compulsory retirement. Thereafter,
on instruction of Labayani, De Rivera went to the office of DCA Jose P. Perez
to seek advice about the late filing of Lantin’s application. Atty. Arturo Noblejas of the said office
advised De Rivera to ascertain if Lantin was still alive by submitting a photo
of him holding the latest issue of a newspaper.
Meanwhile,
the OBC issued a certification that Lantin
had no pending case before said office.
When Joahna S. Iglesias, a clerk in the
Records Office, received the request for the Service Record of Lantin, she
entered the request in her logbook and forwarded the application to Gloria C. Rosario, Chief of the Records
Division. Iglesias also instructed Rosita M. De Leon, in charge of
requests from the National Capital Region, to process the request, since the
person in charge of Region III was on leave then. Satisfied that based on the service record
card, the former judge had no pending case against him, De Leon photocopied and
initialed the service record card and submitted it on August 10, 2006 to Rafael D. Azurin, SC Supervising
Judicial Staff Officer, for certification that it was a true copy. Thereafter, Iglesias transmitted the certified
copy to the Leave Section and then sent it back to the Service Records Section.
Iglesias received the certified
photocopy from the Leave Section and requested the 201 file of Lantin from Fernando R. Inocencio, the records
officer of OAS-OCA. Inocencio, in turn, forwarded the file to Azurin, who
counterchecked the entries against the original documents in the 201 file,
paying particular attention to the dates of appointment, assumption of office,
oath of office, and step increments, etc. The photocopies thereafter were sent to Josephine E. Perlas, the clerk who
encoded the entries and printed the computerized Service Record. Perlas then sent
these photocopies to
In the
meantime, the processing of Lantin’s terminal leave credits was initiated by
Utility Worker Rogelio J. Villapando,
Jr. of the Planning Division of the Court Management Office (CMO). He also frequently followed up said processing
with Amelia G. Serafico of the Leave
Division. According to the investigation
report of OAS-SC, De Rivera, along with a certain Luzadas, approached
Villapando for assistance for the clearance of Lantin. In October 2006, Villapando gave a photocopy
of Lantin’s Service Record to Serafico, who in turn asked Amalia D. Alviso, a Human Resource Management (HRM) aide, for the
leave credits of Lantin from 1984 to 1998. The contents of what was purportedly
the leave credits record were all written in ballpen in the same penmanship,
allegedly belonging to Reynaldo B. Sta.
Ana, a former employee of the Leave Division who was dismissed from the
service for dishonesty and falsification of public documents. Villapando also told Alviso to prepare the
statement of leave credits. This was reviewed by Edgardo S. Quitevis and signed by Bayani on October 4, 2006.
Meanwhile,
as testified to by Valeriano P. Pobre,
Assistant Chief of the Retirement Section, and Edison P. Vasquez, an employee of the EWBD, Key often met with De
Rivera to follow up the retirement benefits of Lantin.
The OAS-SC
report also indicated that Lantin’s clearance was routed to 14 offices. Then DCA Jose Perez[3]
approved the SC clearance on October 19, 2006. On October 23, 2006, Labayani sent a
Memorandum, which included the already approved retirement papers of Lantin, to
the FMO-OCA. The Memorandum included: (1) a Memorandum dated October 20, 2006 of Pobre endorsing for approval the application
that bore the stamp of approval by DCA Perez; (2) the computation of the length
of service and the Certification, signed by Pobre, that Lantin was qualified to
retire under Republic Act No. (RA) 910; (3) a Certification that Lantin had no
money or property responsibility with the MTC in San Felipe, Zambales; (4) his
Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth; (5) a Clearance from the Ombudsman
that he had no pending or administrative cases as of July 2005; and (6) a
Certification of the Sandiganbayan that Lantin was acquitted in a criminal case
promulgated on September 2, 2005. In a
letter dated November 20, 2006, Pobre sent Lantin a Pensioner’s Survey Form, which
was received by the EWBD on November 29, 2006. Five years after Lantin’s retirement, Labayani
secured the judge’s retirement voucher from the Government Service Insurance
System (GSIS).
After
learning from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) that Lantin had already
retired, Atty. Caridad A. Pabello, Chief of the OAS-OCA, asked for a certification
as to the amount Lantin received from the BIR, but it did not reply.
Upon completion of the required
clearance requirements and approval of his retirement application, Lantin was
issued Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) Check No. 79263 dated November 16,
2006 for PhP 237,760.89 and LBP Check No. 79330 dated November 29, 2006 for PhP
1,552,437, representing his terminal leave and retirement gratuity benefits,
respectively. Luzadas allegedly endorsed
the first check on November 11, 2006, while Lantin personally endorsed the
second check on December 12, 2006. The
dorsal portions of the checks did not indicate if these were encashed, although
it appears therein that these were negotiated in Equitable PCI Bank and
deposited in Account No. 0288-06967-0.[4]
On January
12, 2007, a copy of the February 29, 2000
Resolution dismissing Lantin was found in the 201 File of Lantin by the
EWBD. On the cover of the folder was the
phrase “dismissed from the service”
in the handwriting of Rudy C. Garcia,
a utility worker in the Records Division, who was in charge of the files of
judges. Immediately upon this discovery,
the EWBD verified with the Checks and Disbursement Division, FMO-OCA, if the
checks for Lantin had been released. The
checks for the terminal leave pay and retirement gratuity had been released on
November 24, 2006 and December 7, 2006, respectively.
In a
Resolution dated November 20, 2007, the Court directed Lantin to return the
amount representing his retirement benefits amounting to one million seven
hundred ninety thousand one hundred ninety-seven pesos and eighty-nine centavos
(PhP 1,790,197.89). It also directed the
Register of Deeds of Zambales or the Assessor concerned to cause the annotation
of the resolution dated August 14, 2007 on the assets/properties of Lantin
pending the return of the aforesaid amount.[5]
Further
scrutiny of the 201 file of Lantin showed a May 14, 1998 Resolution, A.M. No. 97-11-133-MTC––
Upon
discovery of the irregular payment of the retirement benefits of Lantin, then
Court Administrator (CA) Christopher O. Lock directed DCA Ruben P. Dela Cruz to
conduct an investigation. Consequently,
DCA Dela Cruz submitted his Investigation Report to CA Lock on February 26,
2007. Per the OCA March 23, 2007
Indorsement, the Investigation Report of DCA Dela Cruz was referred to OAS-SC
for appropriate action.
The OAS-SC called
Virginia N. Rodriguez, leave
processor in the Leave Division, to explain the usual procedure for the
handling of the leave cards. She handled
the leave cards of Lantin and personally made the entry on Lantin’s preventive
suspension. She confirmed that in the
early 1980s, processors used pencils to write entries in the card, but shifted
to using ballpens in the 1990s. She said
she was surprised that Lantin was able to claim his benefits despite his
suspension. She categorically said that the purported leave cards of Lantin
were dubious and could not have been the originals, since none of the entries were
in her handwriting; and, strangely, all the entries were made by the same hand,
which was most unlikely, since employees working on the cards were constantly
re-shuffled. She also said that when a
correction is made, only the specific mistake is corrected, and this does not
entail a change of card. Cosme F. Corpus, also of the Leave Division
who was the leave processor since 1977, corroborated Rodriguez’s testimony on
the protocols followed in making entries in the card.
Remedios B. Quintos, an administrative assistant in the
Records Section, was the processor for Regions I to IV until 2003. She admitted
entering all the data in Lantin’s service record cards and photocopying them in
1998 when Lantin asked for a photocopy needed for his Ombudsman clearance;
entering the phrase “compulsory
retirement effective 9-24-98” based on his birthday; and entering “11-01-97” and “9-23-98.” More significantly, she admitted placing the service
record cards of Lantin in the inactive files of judges, and that those cards
remained there for a long time. She
denied receiving a copy of the May 14, 1998 Resolution placing the judge on
preventive suspension, that was why there was no such entry in his leave cards.
Rudy C. Garcia, the utility worker mentioned
earlier, said he was the one who wrote the “dismissed from the service” annotation in the 201 file of Lantin,
after receiving a copy of it.
After
tracing the paper trail, the OAS-SC investigated the employees who appeared to
have had a direct participation in the fraud, and the following information
surfaced:
De Rivera admitted that she received
thirty thousand pesos (PhP 30,000) from Key allegedly to facilitate the
processing of Lantin’s retirement papers. She, however, denied receiving an
additional forty thousand pesos (PhP 40,000).
She claimed that she gave money to Villapando, Butch N. Borres, and Edison
P. Vasquez, although she did not say how much. She said she did not know how the other
offices had cleared Lantin. She gave no explanation why she accepted the
retirement papers of Lantin; why she asked no identification from Key; and why
she processed the papers even if incomplete. She denied taking part in processing the SC
clearance of Lantin. Betty Ignacio, to whose account the two
checks issued to Lantin were allegedly deposited, in a Sworn Affidavit, said
that Luzadas sent her a text message that it was De Rivera who facilitated the
processing of the judge’s retirement claims. De Rivera stopped reporting for work after she
was preventively suspended for ninety (90) days.
The
investigation established that De Rivera had deliberately and knowingly
conspired with Key, Luzadas, and other court employees to facilitate the
fraudulent release of the retirement and leave credits benefits of Lantin. She tampered with court records, specifically
the date of receipt of the application for retirement benefits, in violation of
Section 3, Canon IV of the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel. She accepted the application from Key
although the latter was not the designated agent in the SPA, an act amounting
to misconduct. De Rivera accepted PhP 30,000 in connection
with an illegal transaction, which constitutes grave misconduct. She used
her official position to secure unwarranted benefits, privileges, or exemptions
for herself and others, contrary to Canon I of the Code, Fidelity to Duty, as
follows:
Sec. 1. Court personnel shall not use their official position to secure unwarranted benefits, privileges or exemptions for themselves or for others.
Sec. 2. Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor, or benefit based on any or explicit or implicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions.
x x x x
Sec. 4. Court personnel shall not accept any fee or remuneration beyond what they receive or are entitled to in their official capacity.
De
Rivera is also criminally liable for graft practices under Sec. 3(b)[6] of
RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act; and Sec. 7(d)[7] of
the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees.
Grave
Misconduct is punishable with dismissal from the service for the first offense,[8] while
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service is punishable with
suspension from six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year.[9] Violations of RAs 6713 and 3019 warrant removal
from office, depending on the gravity of the offense,[10]
even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against the public officer. It is
worthy to note that the Code of Conduct
for Court Personnel provides that “all
provisions of law, Civil Service rules, and issuances of the Supreme Court or
regulating the conduct of public officers and employees applicable to the
Judiciary are deemed incorporated into this Code.” If the respondent is guilty of two (2) or more
charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be the penalty for the most
serious charge, and the rest considered as aggravating.
From the
investigation, sworn testimonies of other employees, and her own admission, De
Rivera is guilty of Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest
of the Service, violation of the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel, and violation of Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019 and of
RA 6713. Despite the mitigating
circumstance that this is her first offense, she deserves to be dismissed from the service with
forfeiture of all benefits.
Rogelio J. Villapando, Jr., a utility
worker since 2004 who was then a casual security guard, averred that De Rivera had
introduced Luzadas to him. He admitted
that (1) he helped follow up the SC clearance of Lantin, but said he did it,
not for monetary gain, but out of compassion because De Rivera and Luzadas told
him the judge was critically ill; (2) he followed up the terminal leave papers
of the judge with the Leave Division; and (3) he received PhP 1,000 for
Paglinawan and himself for their pangkain
from De Rivera when the SC clearance was completed. Villapando claimed that
Serafico, who had earlier told him that Lantin’s leave cards were missing,
asked him to borrow the 201 file of the former judge. He did not expect that it
was going to be given to him even without him signing for it. After the leave
forms were photocopied, he personally returned these to the Records Division.
He said that Serafico told him that the leave cards would be reconstructed if
they were not found, that was why they needed the leave forms.
From
the investigation, it can be gleaned that Villapando
worked closely with De Rivera and, by his own admission, received money
from her. He went beyond his official functions and followed up the papers of Lantin
with unusual zeal and received money from Key after the SC clearance was
completed. He committed grave misconduct for accepting money in exchange for
routing the papers of the judge. He is guilty of the same offenses as De
Rivera––Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service, violation of the Code of Conduct
for Court Personnel, and
violation of Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019
and of RA 6713; and is also guilty of violating Sec. 1[11]
of Canon IV on the Performance of Duties,
Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
He should be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits.
Charlotte C. Labayani, Chief of the EWBD, testified that
after the discovery by EWBD of the Court Resolution dismissing Lantin in his
201 File on January 12, 2007, she twice met with Key when the latter followed
up the monthly pension of Lantin. During these meetings, she pretended not to know
of the irregularity attending the judge’s claims. Key gave her a contact number;
and, with it, an investigating officer called up Key on the pretext that she
had to pick up Lantin’s check, but she did not show up. Labayani denied she knew about the SPA
designating Luzadas, and about who had actually followed up Lantin’s claims.
She explained that the Court allowed follow-ups by others, but it was stricter
in cases of clearances from the SC where the designated attorney-in-fact was
the only person allowed. She said their office kept the list of retiring judges
and employees for four years, but did not keep a record of penalized judges.
She averred that the EWBD was not at all times furnished with copies of all
Court resolutions. She explained that the EWBD request to the Docket and Legal Division
was in connection with Lantin’s compulsory retirement and not about any pending
case.
From
the foregoing account, we find no reason why Labayani failed to diligently review the papers of Lantin. It was her duty as Chief of the EWBD to do
so. Had she been more diligent, she
could have averted the fiasco since, from the very start, there were tell-tale
signs that should have warned her to look into the application more closely. For being remiss in her supervisory duty, she
should be admonished to be more diligent in the performance of her duty, with stern
warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act shall be dealt with more
severely.
Valeriano P. Pobre is an SC Supervising Judicial
Staff Officer assigned to the Docket and Legal Division. He had worked with the Court since 1985. He claimed that his participation was limited
to computing Lantin’s length of service and signing the Information Data
submitted for approval of DCA Perez whenever Labayani was absent which was what
happened in the case of Lantin’s papers. Familiar with the office procedure, he
said he noticed that for over two years, only Tuazon handled the verification
clearance in the Docket and Legal Divisions, with only the Alpha list, unlike
the past practice when different processors were assigned to their respective
areas. Based on his experience, it could
have been detected that Lantin was not entitled to the benefits, or that his
benefits had been forfeited, because his folder would have been marked “BF,” which
meant “benefit forfeited.” He testified
that the EWBD was not furnished with a copy of the Court Resolution.
Butch N. Borres is an HRM Assistant.
His official functions included
circulating the SC clearance. He vehemently
denied that he knew Key or received money from her. It was he who first
discovered the Court Resolution when Labayani told him to secure documents for
the processing of the former judge’s monthly pension. He testified it was De
Rivera who followed up and personally received Lantin’s computerized Service Record,
which was not the usual internal procedure. It was his task to bring this record
to the Records Division. Borres also
averred that Villapando also followed up the judge’s papers. The logbooks of the Checks Disbursement
Division and the Property Division of the OCA indicated that the SC clearance
was released to Eric J. Paglinawan, a casual Utility Worker II. When asked why De Rivera would want to
implicate him, Borres surmised that it was probably because it was he who
reported to Labayani that De Rivera allowed CMO employees to follow up the SC
clearance of Lantin. He said only he was
responsible for routing the judge’s papers to two out of 14 offices.
Rafael D. Azurin,
who started working for the Court as a casual security guard and was later promoted
to SC Supervising Judicial Staff Officer, checked the entries in the Service
Records against the 201 File of the judges and lower court employees. He said
that he only signed the photocopies and certified that these were faithful
reproductions of the original. His signature was required before the Leave
Division processed the clearance. He said he did not receive a copy of the SC
Resolution in A.M. No. MTJ-98-1153; otherwise, he would have noted it on
Lantin’s file. He also did not notice if a copy of the Resolution on Lantin’s
preventive suspension was on file. He observed that it would have been easy to
notice the Resolution, since it was thicker than most of the records in the
file. He added that their office had no system to monitor the access of
employees to the Service Records.
Azurin’s
work in the Records Division was critical in determining whether or not Lantin
was entitled to any retirement benefits. We are not convinced that Azurin could
not remember seeing a copy of the Court Resolution in the former judge’s 201
file that contained the Resolution or that could he not remember seeing the
notation “dismissed from the service”
in the folder. It was later discovered that the Resolution was actually in the
201 file. Had he paid more attention to
his duty, he would not have missed the annotation. We, therefore, find Azurin
guilty of gross negligence. Gross Neglect of Duty is punishable with
dismissal for the first offense. In precedent cases,[12] however,
the penalty of dismissal was reduced to suspension upon considering mitigating
circumstances, such as length of service in the Court. Azurin has served the court for twenty (20)
years and, in our view, a suspension of three months is sufficient punishment
for his neglect of duty.
Fernando R. Inocencio is Records
Officer II of OAS-OCA. His work consists
of filing documents in the 201 file of judges. He said that when he retrieved the file of
Lantin, it already had the notation “dismissed
from the service.” He had no idea
who borrowed the file of the judge since, as a matter of practice, the
borrower’s name was not recorded, although there was a prescribed form to be
filled out by every borrower of a 201 File.
Inocencio recalled that Lantin’s 201 file was borrowed only four (4)
times and did not indicate that it was borrowed by Villapando. That Villapando was able to get the files and
the files did not list the borrowers are indications that Inocencio had been remiss
in his duties for which he should be censured.
Gloria C. Rosario, Chief of the Records Division, explained the procedures followed
in, and the protocols observed by, her office and the Leave Division. She gave
no explanation when her attention was called that there was no entry on the gap
in the service of Lantin because of the preventive suspension despite both
resolutions’ being in the 201 file. She
said that she relied on the fact that Azurin had not reported any problem to
her. The OAS noted that a service record
was crucial in processing the entitlement to retirement benefits, and that the
ineptness of the Records Division was a reflection of
Amelia G. Serafico, the Assistant Chief of the Records Division,
testified that it was Villapando who constantly pestered her about the terminal
leave payment of Lantin, and who handed her a copy of the judge’s Service Record.
To get Villapando off her back, she
asked Alviso to prepare the judge’s statement of leave credits. She said she
even jokingly asked Villapando to present his authority to follow up the
terminal leave credits of the judge. She
denied Villapando’s allegation that she had told him to borrow the judge’s 201
file. She did, however, admit informing
Villapando that the judge’s leave cards were missing, and that the leave forms
from the 201 file were needed to reconstruct the cards. Eventually, the leave cards were found in the
inactive files, and the leave forms were no longer needed. For being remiss in her duties, she should be
censured.
Hermogena F. Bayani, Chief of the Leave
Division, said she signed the SC Clearance and the Statement of Leave Credits,
because she found no indication on them that Lantin was dismissed from the
service with forfeiture of benefits. Since the former judge was cleared on his
Service Record, on which she relied, she computed the leave credits due Lantin.
The SC clearance also had no notation on the dismissal with forfeiture of
benefits. She identified the notation
“COMP. RET. EFF 9-24-98” as Sta. Ana’s. She
claimed that the Leave Division did not receive a copy of the Court Resolution,
even if the Notice of the Decision indicated that the Leave Division of the OCA
received a copy of it. Bayani denied that
the leave cards were reconstructed and reiterated that the leave cards were
recovered from the dead files. She
explained that a reconstruction of the leave cards needed the approval of the
Court Administrator, which had not been sought with regard to the leave cards
of Lantin. The errors in the entries on
the leave cards of Lantin by the Leave Division are clear indications that
Bayani as Chief of the Leave Division was cavalier in her duties. For being remiss in her duties as Chief of the
Leave Division, Bayani should also be admonished, with a stern warning that
repetition of the same or a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Atty. Vener B. Pimentel is the OIC of
the Docket Division. The Docket Division
received a copy of the February 29, 2000 Resolution in A.M. No. MTJ-98-1153
finding Lantin guilty of gross misconduct in office, gross dishonesty, conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and conduct unbecoming of a
judge. The Court had ordered, as one of
the sanctions imposed on the judge, the forfeiture of all his retirement
benefits.
As
to why the Docket and Legal Divisions did not state in the clearance request the
outcome of A.M. No. MTJ-98-1153 and the forfeiture of the retirement benefits
of Lantin, Atty. Pimentel explained that there was an inherent flaw in the
clearance protocols, since the clearance request was only to determine whether
a pending case was existing at the time of the request, NOT if there was a
decided case against the applicant for docket clearance. Indeed the clearance request bears the
following question:
|
|
Comment |
Signature |
Date |
|
15. As to pending administrative case: a) For lawyers Office of the Bar Confidant b) For judges and other lower court employees |
|
|
____________ In-charge, BAR office ____________ Chief, Docket and Clearance Div., Legal Office, OCA |
An
amendment or correction of the clearance request is in order, to incorporate a query
on the sanctions imposed on the applicant for retirement benefits and to forestall
similar irregularities relating to the grant of retirement benefits.
Atty.
Pimentel seeks exoneration by contending that he acted in good faith when he
signed the clearance request as OIC of the Docket Division. He explained that he attended to numerous
duties and responsibilities entailing a lot of paper work as head of said division. The Docket Division processes around 36,000
clearances relating to SCSLA, JUSLA, bank, housing, Pag-Ibig, GSIS, cooperative,
computer, motorcycle, handgun, and other kinds of loans; and likewise relating
to travel abroad, study leave, passport, step increment, loyalty, promotion,
retirement, and other personnel action.
It issues around 24,000 certifications to bonding companies for purposes
of accreditation. It evaluates around
1,200 administrative complaints to determine compliance with Rule 140 on the Discipline
of Judges of Regular and Special Courts and Justices. In the process, he had to rely on the work
done by his subordinates on the requests and papers submitted to his Division
for appropriate action. In this case,
Michelle P. Tuazon was in charge of the verification of the clearance request
of Lantin and the preparation of the Clearance Certificate dated August 7, 2006,
which was signed by Atty. Pimentel as OIC of the Docket Division. While Tuazon saw the “BF” notation in Judge
Lantin’s file that meant “benefits forfeited,” she did not inform Atty.
Pimentel about it. Indeed there is no
evidence to show that Atty. Pimentel was ever informed of the BF notation in
Judge Lantin’s file. Thus, Atty.
Pimentel cannot be faulted for signing the clearance, especially considering
the defect in the question asked in the clearance request.
The
Court, however, takes note that the Docket Division received a copy of the
resolution in A.M. No. MTJ-98-1153 imposing forfeiture of benefits on Lantin. As OIC of the Docket Division, it is assumed
that Atty. Pimentel has read said resolution and is aware of such
forfeiture. We note also, however, that
the resolution was issued in 2000, while the clearance request was presented to
the Docket Division in 2006 or six (6) years later. It is possible the information on Judge
Lantin’s case escaped the memory of Atty. Pimentel. The best repository of said data was still
the file of the judge in the Docket Division.
Unfortunately, Tuazon did not alert Atty. Pimentel of such entry. Thus, we find that Atty. Pimentel failed to
observe the necessary caution in his supervisory duty, as he could have
remembered that Lantin was sanctioned in A.M. No. MTJ-98-1153. He should be admonished and sternly warned that
a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Michelle P. Tuazon admitted that she prepared the
certification of the Docket Clearance that Lantin had no pending case; and that
she saw the BF notation that meant “benefits
forfeited” on Lantin’s file. She stated that she was aware that retiring
judges filed money claims of their leave credits; that the Docket Division
certified only “no pending” cases; and that their Division was not concerned
with money claims. Nonetheless, she did
not explain why. She did not disclose
the information to his Chief, Atty. Pimentel, that there was a “BF” notation, when she was duty-bound to do so. She also admitted she did not verify the
information against the Docket Book, which was within her reach. Tuazon is patently grossly negligent in her
duty; and, without any mitigating circumstance in her favor, the OAS-SC
recommends that she be dismissed from the service.
Eric J. Paglinawan, a casual employee, admitted
that De Rivera asked for his help in routing Judge Lantin’s clearance, a
request to which he agreed. This was
beyond the scope of his duties as utility worker. There is no proof he accepted money. For his unwarranted participation, his casual appointment
shall no longer be renewed after its expiration on December 31, 2007.
It
is a sad day for the highest Court to find out that, despite its all-out
campaign to inculcate the strictest of codes of conduct in its judges and
employees, this fraud has been committed, and there are still those who with
criminal minds and greed for money would destroy the reputation of the very
institution they have sworn to serve and protect. We most lament the audacity
and the cunning with which the perpetrators have taken advantage of a flaw in
the office procedures, the weaknesses of peers as to make them succumb to pakikisama pressure, and the ostrich syndrome
that prevails among long-tenured officials that has resulted in their
incompetence and neglect of duties.
WHEREFORE, considering the factual
findings of DCA Dela Cruz; the findings and recommendations in the in-depth
investigation of the OAS-SC; and the rules, canons, and cases pertinent to this
administrative case, we hereby resolve to:
1.
DISMISS from the service, with forfeiture of all
benefits, Cecilia C. De Rivera and Rogelio J. Villapando, Jr., for Grave
Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, violation
of the Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel, and violation of Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019 and of RA 6713;
2. DISMISS Michelle P. Tuazon from the service
with forfeiture of benefits except accrued leave credits, for Gross Neglect of Duty;
3.
ADMONISH Hermogena F. Bayani for being remiss in her duties as Chief of the Leave
Division, with a stern warning that a repetition thereof shall be dealt with
more severely;
4.
SUSPEND Rafael D. Azurin for three (3) months for Gross Neglect of Duty mitigated by his length of service and for the reason that this is
his first offense;
5.
CENSURE Fernando R. Inocencio and Amelia G. Serafico for being remiss in their duties;
6.
ADMONISH Atty. Vener B. Pimentel for being remiss in his duty as OIC of the Docket and
Legal Divisions, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a
similar act shall be dealt with more severely;
7.
ADMONISH Gloria C. Rosario for being remiss in her duties as Chief of the Records
Division, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act
will be dealt with more severely;
8.
ADMONISH Charlotte C. Labayani
for being remiss in her duty as Chief of the EWBD, OAS-OCA, with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act shall be dealt with more
severely;
9.
Declare Valeriano P. Pobre, Joahna S. Iglesias, Rosita
M. De Leon, Josephine E. Perlas, Amalia D. Alviso, Edgardo S. Quitevis, Eric J.
Paglinawan, and Edison P. Vasquez without administrative liability, for lack
of showing that they have participated in the commission of the fraud and
without proof of any negligence on their part; and
10.
Order the OCA to institute the appropriate
criminal and civil actions against Judge Lantin, Annie Key, Dolores Luzadas,
Cecilia C. De Rivera, Rogelio J. Villapando, Jr. and their accomplices.
SO
ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
(On Official Leave)
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
(On Official Leave)
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice Acting Chief Justice
RENATO
C. CORONA CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
(On Leave)
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice Associate
Justice
ARTURO D.
BRION DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
[4] Memorandum dated February 26, 2007, addressed to DCA Christopher O. Lock, from DCA Reuben P. de la Cruz, Re: Fraudulent retirement benefits claim of Judge Jose C. Lantin, MTC, San Felipe, Zambales.
[6]
Sec. 3. Corrupt
practices of public officers:
x
x x x
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
[7] Sec. 7.
Prohibited Acts and Transactions
x
x x x
d.
Solicitation or acceptance of gifts.—Public officials and employees shall not
solicit or accept directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor,
entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course
of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by
or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office.
[8] Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule IV, Penalties, Sec. 52(A), No. 3.
[11] Sec. 1. Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.