THIRD
DIVISION
|
JOANA GILDA L. LEYRIT,
Complainants, - versus
- NICOLASITO S. SOLAS, CLERK OF COURT
IV, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x MA. THERESA ZERRUDO, MARY ANN
F. LASPIÑAS, ELENA MOLARTE SOLAS, MA. NATIVIDAD A. SULLIVAN, RENE F. GANZON,
JOANNA GILDA J. LEYRIT, SALVACION D. SERMONIA, JULIE L. FELARCA, MARICAR A.
LARROZA, ASUNCION O. ESPINOSA, EMMA DELA CRUZ, SALVACION VILLANUEVA and NOENA
DAQUERO,
Complainants, - versus
- NICOLASITO S. SOLAS, CLERK OF COURT
IV, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), Respondent. |
|
A.M. No. P-08-2567 (Formerly
OCA I.P.I. No. 99-670-P) A.M. No. P-08-2568 (Formerly
OCA I.P.I No. 99-753-P) Present: PUNO,*
C.J., QUISUMBING, ** J., CARPIO, Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: October 30, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before the Court are
administrative matters that arose from two administrative
complaints filed by several employees of the Office of the Clerk of
Court (OCC), Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Iloilo City, against Nicolasito S. Solas, Clerk of Court of the
said trial court.
The Complaint, docketed as A.M. No.
P-08-2567 (OCA IPI No. 99-670-P),[1] was
filed by complainants Joanna Gilda Leyrit
(Leyrit), Asuncion Espinosa (Espinosa), Mary Ann Laspiñas (Laspiñas), Natividad
Sullivan (Sullivan), Elena Molarte Solas (Molarte Solas), Julie Felarca (Felarca),
and Rene F. Ganzon (Ganzon) seeking to have respondent held administratively
liable for Dishonesty, Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties, Willful
Violation of Office Regulations, and Violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
The Complaint, docketed as A.M.
P-08-2568 (OCA IPI No. 99-753-P) was filed by the same complainants in A.M. No.
P-08-2567 and was further joined by
Mrs. Ma. Theresa G. Zerrudo (Mrs. Zerrudo), Salvacion Sermonia (Sermonia),
Maricar A. Larroza (Larroza), Emma de la Cruz (De la Cruz), Salvacion
Villanueva (Villanueva), and Noena Daquero (Daquero), charging respondent with
harassment, abuse of authority, grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming a public
official, graft and corruption, oppression, and nepotism.[2]
Complainants made the
following allegations against respondent in their two Complaints:
1.
Respondent had notarized documents and administrative oaths not related
to his official functions, and charged notarial fees for the same.
2. Respondent pretended to be a lawyer even
though he was not, and never corrected persons addressing him as “attorney.”
3. Respondent acted arrogantly as Clerk of
Court, Chief of Office, and Ex-Officio
Sheriff, requiring the OCC-MTCC personnel to obey him (respondent) even if he
was wrong. He humiliated and shouted
vindictive words at complainants in the presence of other people. At one instance, respondent insulted
complainant Leyrit in the presence of many people inside the office by uttering
the following words: “Daw si bilat-bilat
ka guid, maisog, daw ilupot mo ako sa bulsa mo.” (As if you are already
somebody. You are brave as if you will
insert me into your pocket.) Respondent
likewise embarrassed complainant Mrs. Zerrudo by posting a notice in the MTCC
premises enjoining the public not to transact official business with the latter
because of her detail to another court.
4. Respondent controlled the local and national
funds for office supplies, and disposed of them without consulting the MTCC
judges. In fact, respondent acquired a
computer worth P70,000.00 using local funds without the approval of the
Executive Judge. The said computer was being
used exclusively by respondent’s five favored locally funded employees, detailed
to the OCC-MTCC, who brought their small children to play with it. In addition, respondent did not share office
supplies with complainants. Hence,
complainants were forced to provide their own office supplies or borrow from
other courts.
Whenever respondent
was out of the office, requests for office supplies had to be coursed through
the five favored local employees, who were not assigned specific office
functions, but were being utilized by respondent for his personal needs. These five favored local employees loitered
during office hours and did not declare their tardiness and absences in their
daily time records. In contrast, respondent
immediately made reports to the Executive Judge about, and/or issued memoranda
to, the regular OCC-MTCC employees who went out of the office during office
hours.
5. Respondent allowed his personal lawyer, Atty.
Virgilia Carmen Dioquino (Atty. Dioquino), to hold office at the OCC-MTCC and
to utilize office computers and supplies, as well as the services of local
employees as typing clerks. Atty. Dioquino
prepared baseless administrative complaints, which respondent filed against
judges and employees of the MTCC, thus, demoralizing those concerned.
6. Respondent established connections with
lending institutions and banks and acted as the collector whenever such lending
institutions and banks filed cases in court.
He further attended the weekly raffle of cases, so he could get a list
of raffled cases, which he distributed to banks and lending institutions in
exchange for monthly honoraria. When complainants
confronted respondent regarding this matter, respondent filed administrative
cases against them.
7. Respondent ordered security guards Valentino
Alonsagay and Ricardo Besen to monitor and report complainants’ activities.
8. Lastly, respondent exposed to the public,
through radio and newsprint, all misunderstandings and differences between the
local employees detailed to the OCC-MTCC and the regular OCC-MTCC
employees.
In his separate
Comments[3] on
the aforementioned Complaints, respondent proffered the following defenses:
1. Although he did notarize documents that were
not related to his official functions, respondent maintained that he had
erroneously thought that some subscriptions or oaths were jurats. Anyway, he had already talked to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and Executive Judge Severino C. Aguilar
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 35,
2. There were some people who addressed respondent
as “attorney,” assuming that he was one because of his position as Clerk of
Court. Respondent contended that
although he was not a bar passer, he was a graduate of law and, thus, there was
no necessity to correct people who addressed him as “attorney,” especially in
communications addressed to his position.
3. According to respondent, there was peace,
harmony, and respect among the OCC-MTCC employees until Mrs. Ma. Theresa G.
Zerrudo (Mrs. Zerrudo), Clerk of Court III, was transferred to the said
office. Soon after, complainant Mrs.
Zerrudo instigated misunderstandings and intrigues among the employees,
particularly between the local employees detailed at the OCC-MTCC and the
regular OCC-MTCC employees.
Since
complainant Mrs. Zerrudo was instrumental in the employment of complainants
Leyrit, Espinosa, Laspiñas, Sullivan, and Felarca at the OCC-MTCC, the said
five complainants owed their loyalty to her.
Meanwhile, respondent’s own daughter-in-law, complainant Molarte Solas,
began to dislike and disrespect him because, for ethical reasons, he refused to
recommend her for promotion.
Complainants
defied, disobeyed, and refused to recognize respondent as the head of office
and, instead, followed orders from complainant Mrs. Zerrudo’s husband, Judge
Zerrudo. Whenever respondent corrected
errors committed by complainants in the performance of their duties, complainants
would fight back and show their disrespect for and defiance of him, even in
public. Complainants Leyrit and Molarte
Solas, criminal and civil clerks-in-charge, respectively, went as far as depriving
respondent access to the docket books by keeping and locking the said books
inside Mrs. Zerrudo’s office cubicle.
Respondent also
narrated that on 7 June 1999, then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide detailed
complainant Mrs. Zerrudo to the OCC of the RTC, Iloilo City, but despite said
detail order, she continued to report for work and stay in her cubicle at the
OCC-MTCC. This prompted Jose Bryan
Hilary P. Davide, Staff Head of the Chief Justice, to issue an order directing her
to strictly comply with the detail order.
Suspecting that respondent was behind the moves against her, complainant
Mrs. Zerrudo gathered the other complainants and filed the instant Complaints
against respondent to get even with him.
4. Respondent was not controlling the office supplies. He had to keep his office closed, because it was where he kept the daily collections, receipts, and confidential documents of the court. Also, complainants should not have made a big deal about his computer from the city government. The city government gave a computer not only to respondent, but also to complainant Mrs. Zerrudo.
5. Atty. Dioquino was not holding office in the OCC-MTCC and using office computers and supplies, as she had her own office at her residence. Atty. Dioquino only dropped by the OCC-MTCC occasionally to greet respondent. The latter did admit that Atty. Dioquino was his counsel of record in the criminal and administrative cases he filed against Mrs. Zerrudo and Salvacion Sermonia, but averred that he prepared his own complaints and submitted them to Atty. Dioquino for correction and finalization.
6. Complainants’ allegations on respondent’s purported connections with lending institutions and banks were baseless and unsupported by evidence. Respondent attended the raffle of cases to ensure that complainant Leyrit, a member of the Raffle Committee, who had multiple cases of Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, would not be able to manipulate the conduct of raffle.
7. Lastly, respondent commissioned security
guards to his office because of the incident that transpired sometime in
January 1996. A court employee, Salvacion
Sermonia of
Respondent
maintained that the Complaints were merely counter-charges against him because
of the administrative cases he filed against complainants Leyrit and Mrs.
Zerrudo, and the latter’s husband, Judge Alexis A. Zerrudo (Judge Zerrudo).
After
consolidation of A.M. No. P-08-2567 (OCA
IPI No. 99-670-P) and OCA IPI No. 99-753-P (A.M. P-08-2568), the cases were
assigned to Executive Judge Roger B. Patricio (Investigating Judge) of the RTC,
Branch 36, Iloilo City, for investigation.
The
parties opted not to be assisted by their counsel during the investigation.
While
the investigation of the administrative cases against him was pending, respondent
opted to avail himself of early retirement on
After
hearing the testimonies of the parties and their witnesses, the Investigating
Judge, in his Report[4]
dated
1. Failing to conduct himself with propriety, moral righteousness and decorum by scolding, embarrassing, and for being abrasive to his subordinates, particularly the complainants all of which should not have been done as the Clerk of Court and the Chief of Office of the Clerk of Court of MTCC, Iloilo City; and
2. As testified by Mercedes D. Nava, respondent ratified documents without being authorized bylaw to do so, for which he was paid of (sic) notarial fees which he appropriated for his own personal use without accounting them for the government.[5]
The
Investigating Judge recommended that as penalty, respondent’s salaries
equivalent to six months be forfeited in favor of the government and deducted
from respondent’s retirement benefits, thus:
Finding sufficient evidence against
respondent Nicolasito S. Solas, Clerk of Court, MTCC,
The Court referred the Investigating
Judge’s Report to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation,
report, and recommendation.
On
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended to the Honorable Court that:
a. That the instant complaints be REDOCKETED as a regular administrative complaint against respondent Nicolasito S. Solas, Clerk of Court, MTCC, Iloilo City; and
b. Respondent be held GUILTY of simple misconduct for his failure to conduct himself with propriety, moral righteousness and decorum in his dealings with his subordinates and a FINE equivalent to Three (3) months salary be forfeited in favor of the government and deducted from his retirement benefits.
The
Court then required the parties to manifest within ten days from notice if they
were willing to submit the matter for resolution based on the pleadings filed.[8] Complainants and respondent failed to file
their manifestations despite notice sent to and received by them. Resultantly, the cases were submitted for
decision based on the pleadings filed.
The Court agrees in the findings of
the OCA.
Unauthorized notarization of documents
There is no doubt that respondent notarized
and administered oaths in documents that had no relation to his official
function. Documentary evidence submitted
by complainants show that respondent notarized sworn applications for Mayor’s
and business permits, affidavits, and other documents, in his capacity as MTCC
Clerk of Court. He charged fees for his
notarial services, but did not render an accounting of said fees as part of the
collection of the MTCC.
Under Section
21 of the Administrative Code of 1917, only the Clerk of Court of the Supreme
Court and Clerks of Court of the First Instance (now RTC)
were granted the general authority to administer oaths. Section 41 of the Administrative Code of 1987,
as amended by Republic Act No. 6733,[9]
now provides:
Sec. 41. Officers Authorized to Administer Oath.
- The following officers have general authority to administer oaths: President;
Vice-President; Members and Secretaries of both Houses of the Congress; Members
of the Judiciary; Secretaries of Departments; Provincial governors and
lieutenant-governors; city mayors; municipal mayors; bureau directors; regional
directors; clerks of court; registrars of deeds; other civilian officers in
public service of the government of the Philippines whose appointments are
vested in the President and are subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments; all other constitutional officers; and notaries public.
From the
abovequoted provision, the term “clerks of court” is used as
a general term. No specification was
made as to the court to which said clerks of court belonged. The intention of the law is clear -- to
remove the limitation, and hence, to authorize
all clerks of court regardless of whether they are clerks of court of the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts, to administer oaths on matters involving official business.[10]
Clerks of court are notaries public ex officio and, thus, may notarize documents or administer oaths, but only when the matter is related to the
exercise of their official functions.
Clerks of court should not in their ex-officio
capacity take part in the execution of private documents bearing no relation at
all to their official functions. The
Court takes judicial notice of the fact that
It
is clear from the above law that respondent had no authority to notarize sworn
applications for Mayor’s and business permits, affidavits, and other private or
commercial documents, which had no relation to his office as MTCC Clerk of
Court, and to accept fees for such services.
Respondent himself asserts that he is a law graduate; hence, he cannot
feign ignorance of the law and the limits of his authority as notary public ex officio.
Even respondent’s defense that he had
subscribed to oaths, mistaking them as jurats,
deserves scant credit. Rule II of the
Rules on Notarial Practice describes both acts as follows:
SEC. 2. Affirmation or Oath. - The term "Affirmation" or "Oath" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules; and
(c) avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of the instrument or document.
SEC. 6. Jurat. - "Jurat" refers to an act in which an individual on a single occasion:
(a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or document;
(b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;
(c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and
(d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or document.
A
notarized document includes one that is subscribed
and sworn to under oath, or one that contains a jurat.[12] It does not matter whether respondent thought
he was subscribing to an oath or a jurat,
because in either case, he was deemed to have notarized a document and rendered
notarial services.
Respondent
was guilty of abuse of authority, as well as of having violated Section 41 of
the Administrative Code of 1987, as amended by Republic Act No. 6733.
It must be noted that then MTCC Executive Judge Jose R.
Astorga had also filed on 5 July 1996 an administrative complaint against
respondent for various irregularities in the latter’s performance of his duties
as Clerk of Court of the MTCC, Iloilo City, including notarizing private
documents not related to his official functions. Executive Judge Astorga’s administrative
complaint was docketed as A.M. No. P-01-1484. On P5,000.00) with a
warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act in the future will be
dealt with more severely.
Since
the documents that respondent notarized in abuse of his authority as a notary
public ex officio in A.M. No. P-01-1484
and the present administrative complaints appear to be the same, and respondent
has already been penalized for such notarial services rendered in excess of his
authority, the imposition of another penalty upon him for exactly the same
charge is inappropriate, as it will constitute double penalty.
Acts unbecoming a court employee
It appears that respondent had no
close personal relations with complainants, and that he had been suspicious and
irritable when dealing with them professionally, thus, affecting the smooth and
efficient discharge of functions in the OCC-MTCC.
Complainants testified, and respondent
was unable to rebut, that he had shouted at and uttered vindictive words against
them, and even humiliated them while they were doing their job and attending to
the needs of the public. In his
desperate attempt to exonerate himself, respondent could only impute malicious
motive to complainants, averring that they merely had an axe to grind against
him; and that they had defied, disobeyed, and refused to recognize him as head
of the OCC-MTCC. Unfortunately for him, his explanations do not excuse
his actions.
Respondent’s
acts are absolutely unbecoming a court employee who is expected to display proper decorum. In Villaros v.
Orpiano,[13] the Court stressed
that “the behavior of all employees and officials involved in the
administration of justice, from judges to the most junior clerks, is
circumscribed with a heavy responsibility. Their conduct must be guided
by strict propriety and decorum at all times in order to
merit and maintain the public’s respect for and trust in the
judiciary.”
High-strung and belligerent behavior
has no place in government service, where the personnel are enjoined to act
with self-restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with
rudeness and insolence.[14] More
so is such conduct exacted from court employees, since they have to earn and
keep the public’s respect for and confidence in the judicial service.[15] This standard of conduct must apply to the
court employees’ dealings not only with the public, but also with their
co-workers. How can court employees be
expected to treat members of the public, who are mostly complete strangers to
them, with respect, restraint, and civility, when they cannot accord the same
treatment to one another, whom they closely work with on a daily basis?
Agents of the law should refrain from
the use of language that is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing, or
otherwise improper. Judicial employees
are expected to accord every due respect, not only to their superiors, but also
to others and to their rights at all times.
Their every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint,
courtesy and dignity.[16]
Failure to observe such standards of
conduct would erode the dignity and honor of the courts or lay open to
suspicion the official conduct of court personnel. It bears stressing that the image of a court
of justice is mirrored by the conduct, official and otherwise, of its personnel
who are all bound to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency
in both their professional and private actuations. These norms, it should be kept in mind, are ever
so essential in preserving the good name and integrity of the judiciary.[17]
Respondent ought to be reminded that
a clerk of court, as the administrative assistant of the presiding judge, is an
important functionary of the judiciary.
The administrative functions of a clerk of court are vital to the prompt
and sound administration of justice.[18] The clerk of court should be a role model for
other court employees to emulate in the performance of duties, as well as in
the conduct and behavior, of a public servant. A clerk of court cannot
err without affecting the integrity of the court or the efficient
administration of justice.[19] A clerk of court should set the example for
other court personnel in the observance of the standards of morality and
decency, both in official and personal conduct.[20] As part of the administrative functions of a
clerk of court, he/she is expected to foster harmony and cooperation in the
office so as to ensure effective and efficient service to the public.
Evidently, respondent failed to
observe proper decorum in his dealings with his subordinates and to serve as a
model for the other court employees in his conduct and actuations. Instead, he fomented discord, and led those
under him to division by unequally and unfairly treating some of his
subordinates, particularly the complainants, while favoring others. As expected, respondent’s irritable and
haughty behavior towards complainants affected the latter’s performance of
their duties, which, in turn, harmed the integrity of the entire OCC-MTCC.
While complainants may have indeed
defied and disobeyed respondent, the latter should have taken the higher ground
and resisted the urge to retaliate with similarly disrespectful behavior. Respondent would not gain the respect and
obedience of his subordinates by merely demanding the same and wielding an iron
hand in the office. There is no showing
that respondent made any attempt to have a dialogue with complainants to
address the dispute between them.
Clearly, with his acts, respondent
utterly failed to live up to the norms of conduct demanded of his position as
MTCC Clerk of Court, for which he should be held liable for simple misconduct. In Office of the Court Administrator v.
Judge Fernandez,[21]
the Court defined misconduct, on the part of a person concerned with the
administration of justice, as any unlawful conduct prejudicial to the rights of
parties or to the right determination of the cause. It generally means
wrongful, improper, unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or
intentional purpose.
Under Section 52, B(2),
Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service,7 simple misconduct is punishable by
suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense,
and dismissal for the second offense. Considering that respondent has
compulsorily retired from the service last
The
Court finds complainants’ other charges against respondent unsubstantiated by the evidence on
record. In administrative proceedings, the complainants have the burden
of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in their complaint. Since complainants failed to discharge such
burden as to their charges of dishonesty, willful violation of office
regulations, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and
nepotism, against respondent, said charges are dismissed.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Nicolasito S. Solas is hereby found LIABLE for simple misconduct while serving as Clerk of Court of the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities,
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
|
* Chief
Justice Reynato S. Puno was designated to sit as additional member replacing
Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. per Raffle dated
** Per
Special Order No. 755, dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-5.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Id.
at 313.
[9] Approved on
[10] Astorga v. Solas, 413 Phil. 558, 562 (2001), citing the Resolution, dated 18 December 1990, of the Court En Banc on Administrative Matter No. 90-10-1498-MTC (Letter-query of Clerk of Court II Bonifacio D. Paguirigan, MTC, Aparri, Cagayan).
[11]
[12] Testate Estate of the Late Alipio Abada v.
Abaja, 490 Phil. 671, 678 (2005).
[13] 459 Phil. 1, 6-7 (2003).
[14] Policarpio
v. Fortus, A.M. No.
P-95-1114,
[15] Tablate
v. Tanjutco-Seechung, A.M.
No. 92-10-425-OMB,
[16] Judge Caguioa v. Flora, 412 Phil. 426, 433 (2001).
[17] Lauro v. Lauro, 411 Phil. 12, 17 (2001).
[18] Escanan v. Monterola II, 404 Phil. 32, 39 (2001).
[19] Becina
v. Vivero, A.M. No. P-04-1797,
[20] Uy v. Edilo, 458 Phil. 296, 302-303 (2003).
[21] 480 Phil. 495, 500 (2004), citing