Republic of the
Supreme Court
Atty. PACIFICO
CAPUCHINO,
Complainant, - versus
- Stenographer MARIPI A. APOLONIO, Legal
Researcher CARINA C. BRETANIA, Court Stenographer ANDREALYN M. ANDRES, Court
Stenographer ANA GRACIA E. SANTIAGO, Interpreter MA. ANITA G. GATCHECO,
Branch Clerk of Court ROMEO B. ASPIRAS, Clerk IV FE L. ALVAREZ and Process
Server EUGENIO P. TAGUBA, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Santiago
City, Isabela, Respondents. |
A.M. No. P-04-1771
(formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 03-1618-P) Present:
CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, BRION,
PERALTA,* SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: September
5, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D
E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
This
administrative case involves eight (8) personnel of the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities (MTCC), Santiago City, Isabela, Branch 2, namely: Branch Clerk
of Court Romeo B. Aspiras; Stenographers Maripi A. Apolonio, Andrealyn M.
Andres and Ana Gracia E. Santiago; Legal Researcher Carina C. Bretania;
Interpreter Ma. Anita G. Gatcheco; Clerk IV Fe L. Alvarez; and Process Server
Eugenio P. Taguba (respondents).
They were charged with Grave Misconduct and Violation of the Anti-Wire
Tapping Act (Republic Act No. 4200) in two identical complaints, both dated
THE COMPLAINT
Atty. Capuchino alleged that he was
the counsel of the accused in Criminal Case No. II-4066, entitled People of
the Philippines v. Marirose Valencia, for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, filed with the MTCC
of Santiago City, Isabela, Branch 2. The
accused, Marirose Valencia, was convicted of the offense charged and was
ordered to pay private complainant Reynaldo Valmonte the amount of P120,000.00,
plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum computed from the time of the filing
of the criminal case. Atty. Capuchino
filed a motion for reconsideration of
On P120,000.00, asking him to withdraw the criminal case
he filed against
Meanwhile,
the court denied Atty. Capuchinos motion for reconsideration and issued a Writ
of Execution. To show her readiness to settle her obligation, P120,000.00.
The
respondents, claiming that Duque was not authorized to receive money from litigants
even for safekeeping purposes, brought the matter to the attention of Judge
Maxwell Rosete. Judge Rosete required Duque
to comment on the respondents report.
Instead of filing the required comment, Duque filed a motion to set the
case for hearing.
On
Atty.
Capuchino claimed that his and his clients conversations with Aspiras,
Apolonio and Taguba were recorded by Apolonio, with the assistance of the other
court personnel, without his and his clients knowledge, in violation of the
Anti-Wire Tapping Act. He further claimed
that all the respondents conspired with each other to illegally record their
conversations.
In
separate 1st Indorsements,[9] all
dated
In
a Joint Comment[10] dated
Respondent
Alvarez, in her Comment[11]
dated
For
his part, Taguba claimed that he filed a complaint against Duque because he
believed that Duques act was improper as it is unauthorized and unlawful; and
that he was not motivated by malice in filing the complaint. Further, he argued
that Atty. Capuchino has no cause to file the present complaint as the criminal
case of his client had already been terminated.[13]
Aspiras
and Apolonio, in their joint Comment[14]
dated
Atty.
Capuchino filed a Reply[16]
dated July 18, 2003 to the respondents comments, contending that violation
of a law cannot be condoned, no matter how
good and noble
the intention of the perpetrators is. He averred that as a lawyer,
it is his duty to call attention to violations of the law. He cannot
see any reason
why the respondents
made a big fuss over the provisional receipt issued by
Duque, but he can discern their sinister motives. On the respondents
allegation that he has nothing at stake or interest to file
the present case, he counter-argued that the respondents were the
ones who have
no stake or interest in the money privately entrusted to Duque
and who merely pretended that they were doing
a messianic act. He referred to
respondent Taguba as a false messiah who has a string of cases for extortion
filed with this Court. He also said that
seven of the respondents came to see him at this house several times to apologize,
to plead for mercy, and to ask for the withdrawal of the case against them.
On
the recommendation of the OCA, the Court issued a Resolution,[17]
dated January 14, 2004, ordering the redocketing of Atty. Capuchinos complaint
as a regular administrative matter; and referring the case to the Executive
Judge of the MTCC,
Judge
Ruben R. Plata, (then the Executive Judge of the MTCC of Santiago City,
Isabela) inhibited himself from the case on the ground that all the respondents
have filed an administrative complaint against him, docketed as A.M. OCA I.P.I.
No. 03-1483-MTJ, and that he filed against all the respondents a criminal case
for perjury and libel with the Office of the Prosecutor of Manila.[18]
In
a Resolution dated
During
the scheduled hearings of the case, Atty. Capuchino could not appear as he had suffered
a stroke and was under medication. All
the eight (8) respondents moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of basis, and
for Atty. Capuchinos failure to appear
and to present evidence against them. They manifested that they have nothing
more to add to their comments filed with the Court.
In
her undated Report,[20]
Judge
The
investigating judge believes that Atty. Capuchino would not care to appear and
substantiate his complaint. He was not a
party to the taped conversation. He was
not prejudiced by the letter-complaint of Eugenio Taguba against Tessie Duque
nor about the taped conversation. I
suppose that the complaint against the respondents is just a means to get back at
them because of the expose they made regarding the P120,000.00. At any rate, the Investigating Judge believes
that the outrage of the court employees which prompted them to bring to the
attention of the Supreme Court what they believe was an illegal transaction of
another court employee is definitely not a misconduct.
As
the matters raised in the present administrative case were related to the
letter-complaint filed by Taguba and the other respondents against Duque, the
OCA recommended the consolidation of the present administrative case with A.M.
No. P-05-1958 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 03-1718-P).[21]
However, no consolidation was effected because A.M. No. P-05-1958 had already
been decided on
THE OCAs REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
In
an Evaluation Report dated
The
OCA also confirmed Atty. Capuchinos allegation that respondent Taguba had been
charged with several administrative cases before this Court. Taguba, together
with respondents Apolonio and Andres, was found guilty of gambling during
office hours in A.M. No. P-01-1517, and was suspended for one (1) month and one
(1) day. Taguba was also found guilty of
violation of Republic Act No. 3019 and conduct unbecoming a court employee in
A.M. No. P-05-1942, and was suspended for six (6) months.
The
OCA recommended that:
1.
the criminal aspect of
the case be referred back to the Ombudsman for proper disposition;
2.
respondents Taguba,
Apolonio and
3.
respondents Gatcheco
and Andres be exonerated as they were absent when the act complained of
transpired;
4.
the issue of Aspiras
administrative liability be declared moot and academic as he has retired from
the service; and
5.
the instant case against
Bretania be dismissed as her participation in the act complained of could not
clearly be established.
On
THE COURTS RULING
The
issue in an administrative case is not essentially about the wrong inflicted on
the complainant by the respondent; the main question is whether the accused employee
breached the norms and standards of service in the judiciary.[26] We resolve this case based on this
perspective and not on the basis of whether respondents Taguba, Apolonio and
Taguba
denied that he was motivated by malice in bringing
The Court finds the
respondents contentions without merit. Their concerted acts of leading Atty.
Capuchino and Valencia into the court sala,
engaging them in conversation regarding the money deposited
with Duque, taping their conversation without Capuchinos & Valencias
knowledge, and later using the taped conversation as basis of the complaint
they filed against Duque constitute misconduct.
The
Court observes that there
exists animosity among the judges and employees of the court. When the present
case was referred to Judge Plata for investigation, he inhibited
himself on the ground that the respondents had filed
a complaint against him and
that he had also filed a criminal case against all of them. The filing of the
complaint against Duque was instigated by
Taguba.
Initially signed only by Taguba, he prevailed upon the other respondents
to co-sign his letter addressed to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., which was
later docketed as A.M. No. P-05-1958. He introduced as evidence in this
complaint the tape recorded conversation.
Although Duque was
penalized for simple
misconduct, the Court
found that there
was no evidence that she was moved by
evident bad faith, dishonesty
or hatred[27]
in receiving Valencias money for safekeeping. We cannot say the same of Tagubas actions in
the animosity-ridden atmosphere apparently obtaining in the MTCC of Santiago
City.
Making
false accusations and sowing intrigues are acts unbecoming
of a public servant. They run against the principles of public service envisioned
by the 1987 Constitution and by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials & Employees
(Republic Act No. 6713). These acts divert the attention of public employees
and the courts from their more important tasks, and result in undue wastage of
government resources; they cannot be
tolerated if we are to demand the highest degree of excellence and
professionalism among public employees, and if we are to preserve the integrity
and dignity of our courts.[28]
Misconduct,
on the other hand, is a transgression of some definite or established rule of
action; more particularly, it is unlawful behavior by the public officer and
refers as well to wrongful or improper behavior under applicable provisions of
the Code of Ethics. The term gross connotes something out of all measure;
beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful such conduct as is not be excused.[29]
For administrative liability to attach, it must be established that the
respondent was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or other similar motives.[30]
Clearly,
substantial evidence exists in this case to hold Taguba guilty of gross misconduct
punishable by dismissal
from the service even for the first offense. Not only did he disregard the terms of the
Anti-Wiretapping Act within court premises where the public should feel most
secure about their personal liberties. He undertook
the act to secure evidence against a
co-employee; he obtained and used the taped conversation as basis for a
complaint against Duque who was
penalized for the deposit she had accepted. We cannot accept, under these
circumstances, any claimed absence of bad
faith after considering
the devious method Taguba employed and the purpose that it served, however
lofty Taguba thought his purpose had been.
Unfortunately,
we can no longer impose the penalty of dismissal on Taguba because he has
retired from the service on disability effective P25,000.00 from the defendant in a pending case with
the promise that he would work for the defendants acquittal. In lieu of the dismissal that at that point
we could no longer impose because of his previous retirement, the Court
given the gravity of respondent Tagubas offense ordered the forfeiture of Tagubas
disability retirement benefits. While we therefore find Taguba administratively
liable in the present case, we have run out of administrative penalties to impose
on him. Nothing, however, can stop us
from holding and declaring him liable
for the gross misconduct that he stands charged with.
For
their participation in the illegal tape
recording of the complainant and his client, the Court
finds respondents Apolonio and Santiago
guilty of simple
misconduct. We so rule given
the evidence that they
merely followed the lead
of Taguba. Under the
Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service,
simple misconduct is a less grave offense 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.[32]
Since
the penalty of dismissal can no longer be
imposed on respondent Taguba, we can only reiterate the directive in A.M. No.
MTJ-08-1727[33]
ordering the forfeiture of his remaining retirement benefits.
Respondent
Maripi A. Apolonio has previously been found guilty of simple misconduct for
gambling during office hours, together with respondents Taguba and Andres, in A.M.
No. P-01-1517.[34] They were suspended for one (1) month and one (1)
day. Since this is Maripi A. Apolonios second
offense, the penalty
of dismissal should be imposed. We opt,
however, to merely order her
SUSPENSION
from the service for one (1) year effective immediately, in light
of our recognition
that her present act is different in nature
from her first
offense; the elements of perversity and impenitence
that are considered in a repetition of the same offense
are not necessarily
present. Thus, we accord
her the benefit of the doubt.
This
is respondent Ana Gracia
E. Santiagos first offense;
thus, the Court hereby imposes on her a lighter penalty and orders her SUSPENSION from the service for only six
(6) months.
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds respondent Eugenio P. Taguba guilty of GROSS MISCONDUCT, and respondents Maripi A. Apolonio and Ana Gracia
E. Santiago guilty of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT.
Maripi
A. Apolonio is ordered SUSPENDED for
one year effective immediately, with the warning that any similar or graver
offense at any time in the future shall merit the penalty of outright
dismissal.
Ana
Gracia E.
Let a copy of the records of
OMB-L-C-03-0619-E be returned to the Office of the Ombudsman and a copy of this
Decision be furnished the said Office, for appropriate action with respect to
the criminal aspect of the case.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA JOSE
CATRAL
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIA
Associate Justice
*
Designated additional Member vice Associate Justice Jose P. Perez per Raffle
dated
**
Designated additional Member vice Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes per
Special Order No. 1066 dated
[1] Rollo, p. 151.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Maceda v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 102781,
[6] Rollo, pp. 12-13.
[7]
[8] 491 Phil. 128 (2005).
[9] Rollo,
pp. 54-61.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] Mutia
v. Pacariem, A.M. No. P-06-2170,
[27] Office of the Court Administrator v. Duque, supra note 8, at 532.
[28]
[29]
[30] Office of the Court Administrator v. Duque, supra note 8; and Camus v. Alegre, supra note 26.
[31]
Decision dated
[32] Section 52B(2).
[33]
Decision dated
[34] Supra note 26.