Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, - versus - JESUS VINCENT M. CARBON
III, formerly Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Zamboanga City, Respondent. |
A.M.
No. P-10-2836
(from
RTJ-07-2070) Present: BRION,* J.,
Acting Chairperson, PEREZ, SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: September
28, 2011 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
We resolve in this Decision the administrative
charge against Jesus Vincent M. Carbon III (respondent
or Carbon III) made pursuant to the directive of the Court in its
Background
The case A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2613-RTJ
traces its roots to the affidavit-complaint of Joie Ramos against Judge
Gregorio dela Pea III, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Zamboanga City, received
by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
on February 28, 2007. Joie claimed that
during the pendency of the case filed by Joies wife, for partition
against the heirs
of Venancio Go (Special Civil Action No. 551), before
the sala of Judge Dela Pea, the latter asked money from him, and
that he gave the latter around P300,000.00. However, when Joie refused
to give more money to Judge Dela Pea, the latter dismissed Special Civil
Action No. 551 and denied the motion for reconsideration. In support of his allegations, Joie attached
to his complaint the affidavit of respondent Carbon III.
The Court ordered Judge Dela Pea to
comment. He duly complied and in this
comment, he denied all of Joies allegations.[1] On
In the investigation conducted by the
assigned Justice of the Court of Appeals,[3]
Judge Dela Pea appeared and testified, but neither Joie nor his witnesses
appeared. In light of this development, the investigating Justice opined that
the charges against Judge Dela Pea were not supported by the required quantum
of evidence in administrative disciplinary proceedings.[4] The
investigating Justice also noted Joies statement in his affidavit that he
never had any direct communication with Judge Dela Pea, all communications and
transactions having been coursed through respondent Carbon III who acted as
go-between. The investigating Justice recommended the dismissal of the
administrative complaint against Judge Dela Pea, and the investigation of respondent
Carbon III based on the latters admissions in his affidavit.
The
Court approved the recommendation and dismissed the administrative complaint
against Judge Dela Pea in its June 4, 2008 Resolution,[5]
and directed as well the Executive Judge of the RTC, Zamboanga City to investigate the involvement of Jesus
Vincent M. Carbon III, an employee of the RTC-OCC, Zamboanga City, in view of [the]
admissions in his affidavit, and to submit a report and recommendation thereon
within ninety (90) days from receipt of the records. We issued this
Resolution pursuant to our authority to motu
proprio investigate court personnel even in the absence of a direct
complaint or of a complainant, and to discipline erring members and employees
after the observance of due process.[6]
Our Resolution of
I, Jesus Vincent M. Carbon III, of legal age,
married, and a resident of Putik,
That I
am an employee of the Regional Trial Court in
That, sometime early last year (2005), I
became aware of the appointment of Gregorio dela Pea III, a local private law
practitioner, as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court Branch 12;
That, my personal association with Judge dela
Pea III began shortly after his assumption of office; said association went
further by virtue of my employment as a court employee and the fact that I am
the son of my father who is his fellow Judge;
That sometime middle of last year, I personally approached Judge dela Pea
III to make a follow-up on the case of a friend which has been then pending
before his Branch; that, the said case is the case filed by Natasha
Dioquino, the wife of my friend Joie Ramos, against the heirs of Venancio Go
for inheritance;
That after several follow-ups regarding the
aforementioned case, Judge dela Pea III commented to me that the case is
inherently weak. That such weakness can
only be remedied, as he placed it, kung meron tayo. Upon clarification, I came to understand that his phrase kung meron tayo came to mean
as money;
That as a result of such, Judge dela Pea III
urged me several times to ask money from Joie Ramos, the husband of the (sic) Natasha
Dioquino; that, on two separate occasions, I
handed over to Judge dela Pea III the amounts of Php60000 and Php35000;
That I am executing this Affidavit to attest
to the truth of the foregoing and in
support of charges against Judge Gregorio dela Pea III of the Regional Trial
Court[,] Branch 12 of Zamboanga City and for whatever other action that
may be filed against him. [emphases ours]
The investigation of the respondent
was assigned to Zamboanga City RTC Executive Judge Reynerio G. Estacio who
scheduled the investigation for January 27 and
In fact, respondent Carbon III
stopped reporting for work starting March 2007, without the benefit of any
approved leave of absence. This was at about the time Judge Dela Pea was being
asked by the Court to comment on the charges of Joie. Subsequently, Carbon III
filed his resignation from office effective July 2007, but this resignation was
never approved due to his failure to submit the required clearance. Parallel to
this development, Joie wrote SC Administrator Christopher Lock on P300,000.00 cash to answer for the amount Judge Dela Pea
borrowed. On P65,000.00
and P35,000.00 to Judge Dela Pea. Carbon III never resurfaced.
In A.M. No. 08-3-115-RTC (Dropping
from the Rolls of Mr. Jesus Vincent Carbon III, Clerk III, RTC, Office of the
Clerk of Court, Zamboanga City), the
Court issued a Resolution on April 2, 2008[8]
that reads:
The Court NOTES the Report dated 05 February
2008 of the Office of the Court Administrator [OCA] on the failure of Mr. Jesus
Vincent Carbon III to submit his bundy cards from the month of March 2007 up to
the present, submitting that he has not filed any application for leave; that
Mr. Carbon III tendered his resignation effective 25 July 2007; and that, to
date, he has not submitted the necessary clearances for his resignation.
Upon the recommendation of the OCA, the Court
resolves to:
(1) DROP
FROM THE ROLLS the name of Mr. Jesus Vincent Carbon III effective
(2) DECLARE
his position vacant; and
(3) INFORM
Mr. Carbon III of his separation from the service or dropping from the rolls at
the address appearing in his 201 File, that is at B5 L7, A & N Subdivision,
Sta. Barbara,
In his Report and Recommendation[9] of
August 13, 2009, Judge Estacio found that the respondents act of demanding and
receiving money from a party litigant constituted grave misconduct in office -
a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service pursuant to Section
23, Rule IX of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292,
and other pertinent Civil Service Laws. Judge Estacio recommended the
respondents dismissal from the service with prejudice to re-employment in any
branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including government-owned
and controlled corporations, and forfeiture of all his benefits, except accrued
leave credits.
The OCA, in its Report of P40,000.00,
with forfeiture of all the retirement benefits he is entitled to except accrued
leave credits, if any, and that he be barred from re-employment in any branch
or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled
corporations.
The
Courts Ruling
As a preliminary matter, we note the
unusual twists this case took, as the respondent was initially only a witness
in another case the investigation of Judge Dela Pena where he had an active
role and where he made incriminatory admissions that led, after investigation, to
the docketing of a separate administrative case against him. At or about the
time Judge Dela Pea was being investigated (in which investigation respondent
Carbon III submitted his affidavit), the respondent stopped reporting to his office
and subsequently submitted a resignation letter that the Court did not approve
for lack of the required clearance. An
unusual twist came when the Court, instead of directly disapproving his
resignation letter and relating his resignation to the investigation in the case
of Judge Dela Pea, simply dropped him from the rolls and considered him
separated from the service.
To be sure, the OCAs recommendation
and the subsequent Court action were unfortunate, but this lapse
notwithstanding, we hold that, under the unique circumstances of this
administrative matter, the respondents absence without leave and dropping from
the rolls did not place him outside our reach as he apparently intended; he
cannot use his disappearance as a shield against liability for his actions
while he was in office. We can likewise continue with the case against him as
this case was brought while he was still an active employee of the Court.
After he has been heard through his
affidavit and after giving him the opportunity to explain himself and to put up
his defenses, he cannot now hide under the claim of denial of due process. Joie
was clear in his complaint regarding the illegality complained about bribery
allegedly perpetrated by Judge Dela Pea through the respondent. Thus, it was a
complaint, no less, against the respondent to which he responded with an admission that he
indeed followed up the case and
secured sums from Joie under the representation that these were to be
given to Judge Dela Pea. In the ensuing
formal investigation, the respondent failed to appear despite notice. Instead, he conveniently dropped out of
sight. It was under these facts that we maintain our continuing jurisdiction to
hold the respondent administratively liable as a court employee for an
illegality committed while in the service.
On the merits, we agree with the OCAs
finding that the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct as charged. He
admitted in his affidavit that he followed up Natasha Dioquinos case with
Judge Dela Pea and that he handed over to the latter, on two occasions, sums
of money from Joie. While the case against Judge Dela Pea did not prosper for
lack of evidence that he indeed demanded and received money in return for a
favorable ruling on Natasha Dioquinos case, what remains uncontested is that
money changed hands between Joie and the respondent on the understanding that these
sums would be a consideration for receiving a favorable judgment on a case that the respondent worked
on. In plainer terms, what remained
proven was a case-fixing activity where the respondent was a direct participant
as the middleman and fixer between the decision maker and the litigant. Under these circumstances, that Judge Dela
Pea might not have been a party to the nefarious arrangement is immaterial as
what remained was the respondents demand for a bribe that implicated a judge,
in fact a colleague of his own father in the Judiciary.
Thus viewed, the respondents flawed character and
unfitness for a position in the Judiciary stand out, aggravated by his shallow
scheme to escape liability by dropping out of sight to render him out of the
reach of our processes. As we held in the case of Office of the Ombudsman v. Uldarico P. Andutan, Jr.,[14]
separation from the service renders a former employee out of the reach of the governments administrative processes with respect to the former
employment, but this claim does not hold true if the separation from the
service was in contemplation of and to escape administrative liability from an
offense that took place and was investigated while the employee was still in
the service.[15]
Under Section 52(A)(3) of the Revised
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[16]
grave misconduct carries the penalty of dismissal for the first offense. Since the respondent had earlier been declared
dropped from the rolls, the penalty of dismissal is now ineffectual. In lieu of dismissal, we hereby impose an
administrative fine of P40,000.00, with accompanying forfeiture of all
the retirement or separation benefits he may be entitled to, except accrued
leave credits. The P40,000.00 fine shall be deducted from any such accrued
leave credits, with the respondent personally held liable for any deficiency
which shall be directly payable to this Court.
He is further declared disqualified from any future government
service.
WHEREFORE, we
find respondent Jesus Vincent M. Carbon III GUILTY of grave misconduct, and impose on him a FINE of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00)
and the forfeiture of whatever retirement or separation benefits may be due him, except
accrued leave credits, if any. The P40,000.00
fine shall be deducted from any remaining accrued leave credits he may have;
otherwise, we hold him personally
liable for the fine to be directly paid to this
Court. The Fiscal Management and Budget Office
is DIRECTED to compute the monetary
value of the respondents leave credits and to apply any remaining credit to
the satisfaction of the fine imposed. We further declare him disqualified from re-employment
in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government, including
government-owned and controlled corporations.
Let a copy of this Decision be
furnished the Office of the Ombudsman for whatever action it may deem
appropriate.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIANO C.
Associate
Justice
JOSE
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
MARIA
Associate
Justice
*
Designated as Acting
Chairperson of the Second Division in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T.
Carpio per Special Order No. 1083 dated
**
Designated as Acting Member of
the Second Division in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio per Special
Order No. 1084 dated
***
Designated as Acting Member of
the Second Division in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes per
Special Order No. 1107 dated
[1] Comment, filed on
[2] Rollo, pp. 391-392.
[3] Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja; investigation hearings conducted on October 25, November 13 and 20, 2007.
[4] Rollo, p. 541.
[5]
[6] Constitution, Article VIII, Section 6; Maceda v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993, 221 SCRA 464; and Bernardo v. Judge Fabros, 366 Phil. 485, 493 (1999).
[7] Dated
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
[12] G.R. No. 172671,
[13] SECTION 1. Court personnel shall not use their official position to secure unwarranted benefits, privileges or exemptions for themselves or for others.
SECTION 2. Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any or explicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions.
[14] G.R. No. 164679,
[15] Pagano
v. Nazarro, Jr., G.R. No. 149072,
[16] CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19-99.