CYNTHIA
N. EUFEMIO,
Complainant,
-versus-
A.M.
No.
P-02-1608
January
13, 2005
ANTONIO F. MADAMBA,
Respondent.
D
E C
I S I O N
PER
CURIAM:
In a
letter dated January 11, 2001, addressed to Judge Amor A. Reyes,
Cynthia N. Eufemio charged Antonio Madamba, Legal Researcher of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Branch 20), with bribery and
extortion. The letter was accompanied by an affidavit setting out the
basic facts supporting the charge.
Upon
receipt thereof, Judge Reyes required Madamba to explain why no
criminal or disciplinary action should be taken against the latter
under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code and/or the Civil Service
Rules and Regulations. In response, Madamba submitted a letter
dated January 15, 2001, together with an “Affidavit-Answer” denying the
charges.
Thereafter,
Judge Reyes forwarded the Complaint and answer to the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA). On May 6, 2002, the OCA recommended
that the matter be docketed as a regular administrative complaint and
that it be referred to the Executive Judge, RTC, Manila, for
investigation.
On
July 10, 2002, the Court referred the case to the Executive Judge of
the Regional Trial Court, Manila, pursuant to the Court Administrator’s
recommendation.[1] On December 5, 2002, Executive Judge Enrico A.
Lanzanas made his report and recommendation.
The
case was then referred back to the OCA for evaluation, report and
recommendation.
The
facts were summarized by Executive Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas as follows:
“From
the testimony of the complainant and respondent and from the evidences
that they submitted, it appears that the respondent during all the time
pertinent to the matter under consideration was the Legal Researcher
and OIC of Branch 20, RTC, Manila; while the complainant Cynthia
Eufemio was a party to an Ejectment case “Civil Case No. 00-98099”
pending on appeal before Branch 20, RTC, Manila. On October 11,
2000, complainant went to Branch 20, RTC, Manila to comply with her
obligation to deposit her lease rentals in connection with her appealed
case entitled “Cristina Estrera, et al., v. Cynthia N. Eufemio. She met
respondent Madamba who was the O.I.C. of Branch 20 at that time, and in
the course of their conversation complainant handed to respondent
Madamba the amount of P8,000.00 for which respondent Madamba issued a
receipt “Exhibit “A-3”. Again, on November 17, 2000, complainant
again went to RTC, Manila to deposit her rental deposit of
P10,000.00. Once again, the amount of P10,000.00 which was
supposed to be the rental deposit by the complainant fell into the
hands of respondent Madamba. Again Madamba issued a handwritten
receipt for said amount “Exhibit “A-4”. The handwritten receipts
were acknowledged by the respondent stressing out however that he
received the amounts for safe keeping only. He denied having
received any amount except the P18,000.00 covered by the two (2)
aforementioned receipts. Explaining his reason for receiving the
P18,000.00 from the complainant, Madamba insisted that it was the
complainant who forced him to receive the said amounts for safe keeping
only and that the same had nothing to do with the case then pending
before the branch wherein he was the OIC. He further explained
that at that time, the complainant was in a hurry that is why he was
forced to receive the P18,000.00 from her. Finally, he said, that
anyhow he has already returned the sum to the complainant. He
also stressed that the complainant admitted that the money was
entrusted to the respondent for safekeeping and not to bribe the
respondent.
From
the evidence received by the Court, it is clear that respondent Madamba
received at least the amount of P18,000.00 from complainant Eufemio.
The receipt issued dated October 11, 2000, clearly showed that the
P10,000.00 received by the respondent from the complainant was for safe
keeping intended for the rental of the house located at 126 Paz Street,
Paco, Manila, in Civil Case No. 00-98099; the receipt dated November
17, 2000 specified that it was received for safe keeping as rental
deposit in the same case. Clearly, therefore, respondent was not
telling the truth when he insisted that the P18,000.00 had nothing to
do with the case pending before the Court where he was the OIC.
It is
also clear, that respondent has no authority much less any business
receiving money intended as rental deposit. He should have
referred the complainant to the Clerk of Court which office has the
authority to receive rental deposits. In fact, he did not even
remember when he returned the money to the complainant and that there
was no agreement between him and the complainant as to when the
P18,000.00 was to be returned to Cynthia Eufemio.
The
Court is also convinced that respondent received not only P18,000.00,
but also the additional sums of P2,500.00 at an eatery at Paco, Manila;
another P2,500.00 at the residence of the complainant and P3,000.00 at
SM Manila the last amount on the very day that the counsel for the
complainant received a copy of the decision which was unfavorable to
the complainant. The mere assertion of the respondent that the
amounts received by him were not bribe for him to work for a favorable
decision in favor of complainant cannot prevail against the clear
testimony of the complainant and the receipts issued by the
respondent. The fact that the respondent received the sums of
money from the complainant not at the respondent’s office at City Hall,
Manila, but in different places such as an eatery in Paco, Manila, the
residence of the complainant and at SM Manila, clearly indicate that
contrary to the claim of respondent, the sums were received by him
because of his assurance to work for a favorable decision of the case
wherein complainant was a party litigant. His defense that he
already returned the P18,000.00 to the complainant is even evidence
against him.”
Agreeing
with the Investigating Judge, the OCA found “sufficient basis to hold
respondent liable for dishonesty and grave misconduct for the
unauthorized collection of rental deposits and issuance of unofficial
receipts.”[2] It pointed out that “not even Branch Clerks of Court are
authorized to collect rental deposits and issue receipts as this is a
function of the Clerk of Court. Respondent, as the Legal
Researcher and Officer-In-Charge was unauthorized to receive rental
deposits from complainant.”[3] It recommended that respondent be
dismissed from the service.
We
agree with the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
Respondent’s
acts of (1) accepting money intended as rental deposits and (2)
demanding money allegedly to facilitate the procurement of a favorable
decision constitute grave misconduct. Respondent has no business
accepting and keeping money deposited by a party-litigant to cover
rentals in connection with an ejectment case. Such act is not
sanctioned by Supreme Court Circular 13-92.[4] He should have directed
the complainant to deposit the same with the Clerk of Court or “he
should have turned over the money to the Clerk of Court and made sure
that the official receipt therefor has been issued since the latter is
the custodian of official receipts and fiduciary collections of the
court.”[5] His claim that complainant forced him to receive the sums of
P8,000 and P10,000 is simply incredible. Nevertheless, no matter
how insistent complainant might have been that he keep the money, he
should still have taken the proper steps to ensure that all moneys
received in trust were deposited with the proper custodian and were
duly accounted for. Being involved in the dispensation of justice, his
acts must always be beyond reproach and free from any suspicion that
may taint the judiciary.[6]
Worse,
the actions of respondent tended to engender the public misperception
that decisions could be bought by those who were willing and able to
pay the price therefor. He made a mockery of the principle
enshrined in our fundamental law that a public office is a public
trust.[7]
All
those involved in the administration of justice are required at all
times to conduct themselves with the highest degree of propriety and
decorum[8] and to avoid incidents that tend to degrade the judiciary
and diminish respect and regard for the courts. The willful and
intentional failure of respondent to obey this mandate constitutes
grave misconduct that warrants his dismissal[9] from the service.[10]
On the
part of any person involved in the administration of justice, we cannot
countenance any conduct, act or omission that would violate the norm of
public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the
faith of the people in the judiciary.[11]
WHEREFORE,
respondent Antonio F. Madamba is found GUILTY
of gross misconduct and
hereby DISMISSED from the
service, effective upon service on him of
this Decision, with FORFEITURE
of all benefits except accrued leave
benefits. Furthermore, he is DISQUALIFIED from being reemployed
in the Government or in any subdivision, instrumentality or agency
thereof, including government-owned or -controlled corporations.
SO
ORDERED.
Davide,
Jr., C.J., Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna,
Tinga, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ.,
concur.
Puno,
J., no part, due to
relationship to counsel.
[1]
July 10, 2002 Resolution; rollo, p. 19.
[2]
OCA Memorandum dated July 15, 2004, pp. 4-5.
[3]
Id., pp. 6-7.
[4]
The circular states, inter alia: “All collections from bailbonds,
rental deposits and other fiduciary collections shall be deposited
immediately by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof, with
an authorized government depository bank.”
[5]
Madrid vs. Ramirez, 254 SCRA 376, 383 (1996).
[6]
Juntilla vs. Calleja, 262 SCRA 291 (1996); Quiroz vs. Orfila, 272 SCRA
324 (1997).
[7]
Mendoza vs. Tiongson, 265 SCRA 653 (1996).
[8]
Amane vs. Mendoza-Arce, 318 SCRA 465 (1999).
[9]
Section 22(c) of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of
Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws
prescribes the penalty of dismissal for the offense of grave misconduct.
[10]
Almario vs. Resus, 318 SCRA 742, 748-749 (1999).
[11]
Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan, 247 SCRA 108 (1995).
|