Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
|
PRESENTATION
V. ANOTA, Complainant,
-
versus - AGERICO P. BALLES, CLERK
OF COURT IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MTCC, TACLOBAN CITY, LEYTE, Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-06-2132
Present:
CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and SERENO,
JJ. Promulgated: August 25, 2010 |
|
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
||
|
|
||
R E S O L U T I O N
|
||
|
|
||
BRION, J.:
|
||
This administrative matter arose from
a letter complaint[1] of
Presentation V. Anota, dated June 23, 2004, addressed to Chief Justice Hilario
G. Davide, Jr.
In her letter, Mrs. Anota stated that
her husband, Felicisimo G. Anota, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)-Branch I Clerk of Court, Tacloban
City, died without enjoying his retirement benefits because Atty. Agerico P.
Balles, Clerk of Court IV of the Tacloban City MTCC, unjustly refused to issue
the clearance necessary for the release of her husband’s retirement
benefits. She alleged that her husband
was forced to retire from the government at 63 years of age because of kidney
problems traceable to diabetes; that he had to undergo amputation and had dialysis
twice a week for 19 months, before he died on June 21, 2004; and that he filed
all the necessary documents for his retirement, and the only missing document
was the clearance from Atty. Balles.
Atty. Balles refused to issue the clearance despite his knowledge that
Mr. Anota had been cleared of money and property accountability and had no administrative
case pending against him.
In his comment[2] to
the 1st Endorsement of Mrs. Anota’s complaint, Atty. Balles asserted
that he could not issue the clearance because Presiding Judge Marino Buban
believed that Mr. Anota still had to answer for some missing court records, among
others.
We referred the matter to the Tacloban City Regional
Trial Court executive judge for investigation, report and recommendation, upon
the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).[3] The investigating judge conducted several
hearings, and based on his conclusion, the OCA, in its Memorandum,[4]
ruled that Atty. Balles’ acts amounted to oppression. There was no missing court record in Tacloban
City MTCC-Branch 1 according to the Court Management Office-OCA’s judicial
audits in June 2000 and August 2003, and the incumbent MTCC Clerk of Court
testified that Mr. Anota had fully accounted for all the money and property
under his custody. Thus, the OCA found
Atty. Balles’ refusal to issue the clearance grossly unjust because Mr. Anota
could have used his retirement benefits for his medicine and hospital expenses
during his confinement.
We concur with the OCA’s findings,
and would have fully concurred with its recommended sanctions against Atty.
Balles, except that:
First, on March 28, 2006, Atty.
Balles submitted to us a certification that Felicisimo Anota had been cleared
of money and property accountabilities;[5]
and
Second, in 2009, we dismissed Atty.
Balles from the service in A.M. No. P-05-2065, entitled “Report on the
Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts of Mr. Agerico P. Balles,
MTCC-OCC, Tacloban City.”[6] Our Decision in this administrative matter
partly reads:
Hence, for the delay in the remittance of cash
collections in violation of Supreme Court Circulars No. 5-93 and No. 13-92 and
for his failure to keep proper records of all collections and remittances,
Balles is found guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty punishable, even for the first
offense, by dismissal.
WHEREFORE, Agerico P. Balles is hereby found GUILTY of gross
neglect of duty and is ordered DISMISSED from the service. Except for leave
credits already earned, his retirement benefits are FORFEITED, with prejudice
to reemployment in any government agency, including government-owned and
controlled corporations. The Civil
Service Commission is ordered to cancel his civil service eligibility, if any,
in accordance with Section 9, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V
of Executive Order No. 292.[7]
Atty. Balles’ dismissal from the
service has now been implemented, thus rendering the adjudication of the
present administrative matter an exercise in futility; no administrative
penalty can be imposed after his dismissal from the service, the forfeiture of
all his employment benefits except for accrued leave credits, and his
disqualification from future employment with any government agency. We thus have no option left but to dismiss
the present administrative matter for being moot and academic.
SO
ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO