Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD
DIVISION
|
OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, - versus - JUDGE UYAG P.
USMAN, Presiding Judge, Sharia Circuit Court, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No. SCC-08-12 (Formerly OCA
I.P.I. No. 08-29-SCC) Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, PERLAS-BERNABE,
JJ. Promulgated: October
19, 2011 |
x
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This administrative
proceeding stemmed from a letter-complaint dated April 23, 2008 filed before
the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao, requesting for a lifestyle check on
respondent Judge Uyag P. Usman (respondent), Presiding Judge, Sharia
Circuit Court, Pagadian City, in connection with his acquisition of a Sports Utility
Vehicle (SUV) amounting to ₱1,526,000.00.
In his letter,[1]
complainant alleged that respondent acquired a brand new SUV, specifically
a Kia Sorento EX, Automatic Transmission and 2.57 CRDI Diesel for ₱1,526,000.00;
that he paid in cash the total down payment of ₱344,200.00; and that the
remaining balance was payable in 48 months with a monthly amortization of
₱34,844.00 to the Philippine Savings Bank (PS Bank), Ozamis City
Branch.
Complainant further averred
that respondent had just been recently appointed as a judge and since he
assumed his post, he seldom reported for work and could not be located within
the courts premises during office hours. Moreover, he was only receiving a
very small take home pay because of his salary and policy loans with the
Supreme Court Savings and Loan Association (SCSLA) and the Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS), many of which he incurred when he was
still a Clerk of Court of the Sharia Circuit Court in Isabela City, Basilan.
Complainant attached photocopies of his pay slips to prove his allegation.
Respondents financial capability
to acquire said vehicle has been questioned because he is the sole bread winner
in his family and he has seven (7) children, two (2) of whom were college
students at the Medina College School of Nursing, a private school.
On
In his Comment,[3]
respondent explained that he acquired the Kia Sorento vehicle in 2008 but it was
a second-hand, and not a brand new, vehicle; that he had no intention of buying
the said vehicle but his friend, who was a manager of KIA Motors, Pagadian
City, convinced him to avail of their lowest down payment promo of ₱90,000.00
to own a second-hand demo unit vehicle;
that he was hesitant to avail of the promo but his mother, a U.S. Veteran
Pensioner receiving a monthly pension of US$1,056.00, persuaded him to avail of
it; that it was his mother who paid the down payment of ₱90,000.00 and
the monthly installment of more than ₱30,000.00; that when his mother got
sick, her pensions and savings were used to buy medicines, thus, he defaulted
in the payment of the said vehicle for four (4) months; and that PS Bank
foreclosed the mortgage on the said vehicle.
Respondent denied the
allegation that all his seven (7) children depended on him for support. He
claimed that only three of his children, all in the elementary level and
studying in public schools, were under his care; that his mother financially helped
him in the education of his two daughters who were in college; and that his
other two children were already married and gainfully employed.
Respondent also refuted the
charges that he seldom reported for work and could not be located within the
courts premises. He, instead, asserted that there was never a single day that
he failed to report for work; that he often arrived ahead of his staff considering
that he lived near the court; and that his
conduct as a judge was beyond reproach and this could be attested to by his
staff and employees at the Sangguniang Panlunsod of
Respondent bared that, at
present, he is receiving a monthly take home pay of more than ₱40,000.00
including his salary and allowances plus honorarium from the local government.
In its Report[4] dated
The OCA, however, held respondent
liable for violation of Section 8 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713
otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees and of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019, known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for failing to file his Statement of
Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for the years 2004-2008. Thus, the
OCA recommended that respondent be fined in the amount of ₱10,000.00
The Court agrees with the
finding of the OCA that the charges against respondent were not fully
substantiated. The evidence adduced
in the case, consisting of documents submitted by respondent are sufficient to
prove that it was, indeed, his mother who paid the down payment and the monthly
amortizations for the subject vehicle.
The Court also agrees with the OCA that respondent
is guilty of violating Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 8 of R.A. No.
6713.
Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 provides:
Sec. 7. Statement of Assets and
Liabilities. Every public officer, within thirty days after assuming office
and, thereafter, on or before the fifteenth day of April following the close of
every calendar year, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or
upon his resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the
office of the corresponding Department Head, or in the case of a Head of Department
or Chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, a true,
detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement
of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and
family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding
calendar year: Provided, That public officers assuming office less than two
months before the end of the calendar year, may file their first statement on
or before the fifteenth day of April following the close of the said calendar
year.
In the same manner, Section 8, R.A. No. 6713 states:
SEC. 8. Statements and Disclosure. Public officials and employees have
an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the
public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and
financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of
unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.
(A)
Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. All
public officials and employees, except those who serve in an honorary capacity,
laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file under oath their
Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests
and Financial connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children
under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.
The two documents shall contain information on the following:
(a) real property, its
improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value;
(b) personal property and
acquisition cost;
(c) all other assets such as
investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like;
(d) liabilities, and;
(e) all business interests and
financial connections.
The documents must be filed:
(a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of
office;
(b) on or before April 30, of every year
thereafter; and
(c) within thirty (30) days after separation from
the service.
All public officials and employees required under this section to file
the aforestated documents shall also execute, within thirty (30) days from the
date of their assumption of office, the necessary authority in favor of the
Ombudsman to obtain from all appropriate government agencies, including the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, such documents as may show their assets,
liabilities, net worth, and also their business interests and financial
connections in previous years, including, if possible, the year when they first
assumed any office in the Government.
Husband and wife who are both public officials or employees may file the
required statements jointly or separately.
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
From the foregoing, it is imperative that every
public official or government employee must make and submit a complete
disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in order to suppress any
questionable accumulation of wealth.[5] This serves as the basis of the government and
the people in monitoring the income and lifestyle of public officials and
employees in compliance with the constitutional policy to eradicate corruption,
to promote transparency in government, and to ensure that all government
employees and officials lead just and
modest lives,[6]
with the end in view of curtailing and
minimizing the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard
of honesty in the public service.[7]
In the present case,
respondent clearly violated the above-quoted laws when he failed to file his SALN for the years 2004-2008. He gave no
explanation either why he failed to file his SALN for five (5) consecutive
years. While every office in the government service is a public trust, no
position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an
individual than a seat in the Judiciary. Hence, judges are strictly mandated to
abide with the law, the Code of Judicial Conduct and with existing
administrative policies in order to maintain the faith of our people in the
administration of justice.[8]
Considering that this is the
first offense of the respondent, albeit for five years, the Court shall impose
a fine of only Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00) with warning.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Uyag P. Usman, Presiding
Judge, Sharia Circuit Court, Pagadian City, GUILTY of violation of
Section 7, R.A. No. 3019 and Section 8, R.A. No. 6713 and orders him to pay a FINE
of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
SO
ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo,
pp. 4-6.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Ombudsman v. Racho, G.R.
No. 185685,
[6]
[7]
[8] Magarang
v. Jardin, Sr., 386 Phil. 273, 284 (2000).