EVELYN
T. HONCULADA,
Complainant,
-versus-
A.M.
No. P-05-1945
January
31, 2005
VICTORIANO S. RAGAY, JR., Court Interpreter,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dumaguete City,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
PER
CURIAM:
The
Court has said time and again that all persons serving the Judiciary
must at all times be circumspect in their conduct and observe the norms
of public accountability to the end that the people’s faith in this
institution may not diminish. We have not hesitated to impose the
ultimate penalty upon those who have fallen short of the standards of
responsibility. Such is the case at bar.
In a
letter[1] dated March 12, 2003, complainant Evelyn T. Honculada charges
respondent, Mr. Victoriano S. Ragay, Jr., Court Interpreter, Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, Dumaguete City, with Gross Misconduct
relative to Civil Case No. 12932 entitled “Erle Dwight Tubat v. Glenda
Tubat, et al.” for Partition. Attached to the complaint is a
letter[2] dated December 17, 2002, addressed to complainant in which
respondent allegedly demands money from complainant.
The
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) summarizes the facts as
follows:[3]
“Complainant, one
of the defendant-heirs in the partition case, alleges that respondent,
who was appointed as one of the commissioners to effect the partition,
attempted to extort money from him and his other co-heirs in the amount
of P3,000.00. This demand was made in a letter dated 17 December
2002 sent to him by respondent where he also acknowledged receipt of
the sum of P9,000.00 from Mr. Erle Dwight Tubat, Wilma Sojor and Heirs
of Jeseso Tubat. Complainant claims that the receipt by respondent of
the amount of P9,000.00 and demanding P3,000.00 from him (sic) and his
(sic) co-heirs were done without the express authority of Presiding
Judge Araceli Alafriz.
In his
comment, respondent explains that Mrs. Sojor, a defendant in the
partition case, voluntarily gave the amount of P3,000.00 to the
commissioners and a receipt was issued to her. The money was intended
for gasoline or transportation expenses, fees in securing the necessary
documents and construction expenses in building indicators to determine
the boundaries of the involved properties.
Respondent
avers that Mrs. Sojor suggested that a letter also be sent to her
co-heirs to inform them that she already gave the amount of P3,000.00
to the commissioners and that as co-heirs, they should also share in
the cost of carrying out the partition. This was the reason why the 17
December 2002 letter was sent to complainant.
Respondent
claims that his designation as the officer-in-charge ceased as early as
15 January 2003 when their Branch Clerk of Court reported back for
work. Thus, he is not sure whether Erle Tubat and the heirs of the late
Jeseso had given their share in the expenses to the commissioned
surveyors.
In
this Court’s Resolution dated 3 September 2003, the administrative
complaint was referred to the Executive Judge of RTC of Dumaguete City
for investigation, report and recommendation.
Executive
Judge Araceli S. Alafriz reported that during the investigation,
respondent admitted that he was not the appointed Chairman of the
Commission tasked to partition the properties but merely assumed its
chairmanship as then designated OIC of Branch 41. Respondent has
been with the court for 28 years, and he is aware that all
Commissioners in a partition case are appointed by the court. As
the OIC, however, he had to take over the responsibilities and
functions of the Branch Clerk of Court who was then on leave of absence.
Respondent
also admitted that he sent copies of the 17 December 2002 letter to the
defendants in the partition case, but he did not consult the Presiding
Judge nor did he attach copies of the letters to the records of the
partition case.
Respondent
admittedly received the amount of P3,000.00 from Mrs. Sojor, but he
alleged that he gave the amount to the surveyors. He could not produce
however the receipt which he alleged was with Mrs. Sojor.”
In her
Investigation, Report and Recommendation[4] dated January 16, 2004,
Judge Alafriz notes that in 1999, she filed Administrative Matter No.
99-769-P (Judge Araceli S. Alafriz v. Victoriano S. Ragay, Jr.) against
respondent for a similar offense. However, the case was dismissed
for being unsubstantiated.
Perhaps
with this previous case in mind, Judge Alafriz asked respondent during
the investigation of the case on October 29, 2003 if he would like her
to inhibit herself from hearing the case. Respondent replied that he
did not.[5]
After
due proceedings, Judge Alafriz now recommends that respondent be
dismissed from the service based on her findings that respondent was
aware that he was not the designated Chairman of the Commission
appointed by the Court to partition the properties subject of
litigation; he sent copies of the letter dated December 17, 2002 to the
defendants in his capacity as OIC/Acting Branch Clerk of Court but did
not attach copies thereof to the records of the case; he had not
informed the Presiding Judge of Branch 41 of his actions; his
allegation that the money was used for laborers, monuments and survey
is unsupported by evidence; and no estimated cost of expenses had yet
been given by the surveyors to justify the amounts requested by
respondent.
Concurring
with the findings of Judge Alafriz, the OCA recommends that respondent
be dismissed from the service for improper solicitation and grave
misconduct in office.
We
agree with the OCA and Judge Alafriz that respondent’s actuations
constitute grave misconduct and warrant dismissal from the service.
In
actions for partition, the court appoints commissioners to make the
partition if the parties are unable to agree upon the
partition.[6] In the instant case, respondent was not appointed
by the court as a commissioner, much less as Chairman of the Commission
tasked to partition the litigated properties. He admittedly
merely assumed chairmanship of the Commission because the Branch Clerk
of Court of Branch 41 was then on leave of absence. This, in
itself, is already highly irregular and improper especially as, Judge
Alafriz correctly notes, respondent has been with the court for
twenty-eight years and is aware that all commissioners in a partition
case are appointed by the court.
Respondent
testified:
Court: How long
have you been working with the Court from the time you were appointed?
Mr.
Ragay: 28 years.
Court:
And so you were aware that all commissioners are appointed by the Court?
Mr.
Ragay: Yes.
Court:
And despite of (sic) that you assumed the chairmanship even if there
was no order appointing you?
Mr.
Ragay: I was of the belief that as Officer-in-Charge or Acting Branch
Clerk of Court I also assumed the responsibility of the Branch Clerk of
Court, all its functions and responsibilities.[7]
What
compounds respondent’s offense is the fact that he “requested”
complainant to “share” in the expenses to be incurred in effecting the
partition and received the amount of P3,000.00 from one of the parties
without authority from the court. According to him, he was only
constrained, upon Mrs. Sojor’s insistence, to write a letter to the
defendants requesting them to contribute to the expenses for partition.
He said:
Q: And you also
mentioned in your letter to Mrs. Evelyn Honculada that this is pursuant
to the Order of the Court dated October 16, 2002?
A:
With regard to the sharing of the expenses, I place[d] there the
quotation “pro-rata”. I have no intention really of forcing them.
Actually, as Officer-in-Charge I knew that all the money will be
deposited to the Clerk of Court or to the Officer-in-Charge.
Q: How
could you know how much the expenses would be when there was no amount
given yet by the engineer appointed by the Court?
A: I
was not thinking of any amount at that time but because of Mrs. Sojor
who insisted that I should write a letter to the defendants, so I was
constrained to heed to her request. When we started relocating the
properties the surveyor recommended that they will need funding in
regard to the relocation of the properties because they will be hiring
laborers and they will be constructing or make these monuments so that
they can determine the metes and bounds of the properties so that they
can place the monuments that is why I was constrained to write to them
with regard to that. I was not thinking of the whole expenses, only for
the start. We even planned out that every amount that will be given and
spent in the operation we will list them.
Q:
Alright, the ocular inspection conducted by you with the knowledge of
the Court?
A:
When we started, Ma’am? No, the Court was not around so because…when we
did that, Ma’am, this was not because we want to violate or to
disregard the Honorable Court. The purpose of starting the work since
they assumed as Commissioner, to be able to direct the questioned
properties and so that the surveyor could already make the necessary
report before an actual relocation of the property and partition of the
property can be done.[8]
Respondent
would impress upon this Court that he was just performing his duty out
of a desire to speed up the partition. However, his actions speak more
of feigned innocence and misplaced zeal. If the transaction was truly
above board, respondent would and should have informed the Presiding
Judge of his actions as soon as it was possible for him to do so, and
attached a copy of his letter dated December 17, 2002 to the records of
the case. However, as he himself admitted, respondent did not
only fail to inform the Presiding Judge of Branch 41 of his actions, he
also did not attach a copy of his solicitation letter to the records of
the case. He said:
Court: Were these
letters sent by you to the parties attached to the record of the case?
Mr.
Ragay: It is personal letter.
Court:
If it is personal you are not acting as chairman?
Mr.
Ragay: As Officer-in-Charge…I think I have attached a letter. I cannot
remember now.
Court:
It is not attached to the records of the case. Did you inform the Court
that you received the amount as Acting Commissioner?
Mr.
Ragay: No, your Honor, because that amount is personal money of Mrs.
Sojor. It was her desire to start doing our job.[9]
Moreover,
respondent failed to substantiate his claim that he gave this amount to
the surveyors. His declaration to the effect that the money was given
to the surveyors/engineers is self-serving and unsupported by any
evidence despite the opportunity given to him to present the receipt or
a photocopy thereof issued by the supposed recipients.
Section
22(k), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules classifies the act
of soliciting anything of monetary value in the course of official
duties or in connection with any transaction which may be affected by
the functions of an office as a grave offense punishable by
dismissal. It provides:
Sec. 22.
Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified
into grave, less grave, and light, depending on the gravity of its
nature and effects of said acts on the government service.
The
following are grave offenses with corresponding penalties:
(k) Soliciting or accepting directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity,
favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value which in the
course of his official duties or in connection with any operations
being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the
functions of his office. The propriety or impropriety of the foregoing
shall be determined by its value, kinship, or relationship between
giver and receiver and the motivation. A thing of monetary value is one
which is evidently or manifestly excessive by its very nature.
1st
Offense – Dismissal. (Emphasis in the original)
The
penalty of dismissal carries with it cancellation of eligibility,
forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and
disqualification from reemployment in the government service, without
prejudice to criminal or civil liability.[10]
In
Rural Bank of Francisco F. Balagtas (Bulacan), Inc. v. Pangilinan,[11]
we dismissed the respondent deputy sheriff for failing to immediately
turn over and keeping in his custody the amount of P5,000.00 entrusted
to him for remittance to the complainant.
Likewise,
in Re: Report on Audit and Physical Inventory of the Records of Cases
in MTC of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija,[12] we declared that the Clerk
of Court’s failure to turn over to the court cash in his possession
constitutes gross negligence in the performance of his duty, gross
dishonesty and even malversation of funds and accordingly dismissed the
respondent from the service.
The
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees provides that every public servant shall uphold public
interest over his or her personal interest at all times. Court
personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, are required
to conduct themselves always beyond reproach, circumscribed with the
heavy burden of responsibility as to free them from any suspicion that
may taint the good image of the judiciary.[13]
Far
from observing this norm of conduct, respondent’s actuations in the
instant case raise suspicion that he misappropriated the amount of
P3,000.00 which he solicited from one of the parties without court
authority. The foregoing acts of respondent indubitably establish
his guilt and justify his dismissal.
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds respondent Victoriano S. Ragay, Jr., Court Interpreter,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dumaguete City, GUILTY of grave
misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and improper
solicitation, and hereby orders his immediate DISMISSAL from the
service with FORFEITURE of all leave credits and retirement benefits
due. He is hereby DISQUALIFIED from reemployment in the
government service, including government owned and/or controlled
corporations.
SO
ORDERED.
Davide,
Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario,
and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Callejo,
Sr., J., on official leave.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-3.
[2]
Id. at 3, Annex “A” of the letter-complaint.
This
is to inform you that, Mr. Erle Dwight Tubat, Mrs. Wilma T. Sojor and
the Heirs of Jesesu Tubat, represented by Mrs. Susana Tuble vda. de
Tubat, in view of their willingness to have the properties, subject of
the herein Civil Case No. 12932, entitled Erle Dwight Tubat vs. Glenda
Tubat et al., for Partition, etc., be settled, have initially put-up a
partial contribution of P3,000.00 each for the Commissioners to start
their duties in finding and making table surveys in regard thereto,
thru ocular inspection, in preparation for an actual survey that will
be done on each property that belongs to the conjugal partnership of
the late spouses Cesario Tubat and Nazaria Diaz.
In connection therewith, the Commissioners are humbly requesting your
good self to also share in the expenses that will be incurred during
the exercises of their duties relative to the afore-stated purpose/s,
this is, however, in pursuant to the order of the court, dated October
16, 2002, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: “xxx---the
expenses to be shouldered by the heirs on pro-rata basis---xxx”.
[3]
Id. at 116-118, Memorandum of the OCA dated October 6, 2004.
[4]
Id. at 26-28.
[5]
Id. at 30.
[6]
Sec. 3, Rule 69, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[7]
TSN, November 13, 2003, pp. 5-6; Rollo, pp. 68-69. See also the
following testimony in TSN, October 29, 2003, p. 3, Rollo, p. 31:
Q:
In what capacity did you receive the amount?
A: As Officer-in-Charge, Ma’am, and likewise as Acting Chairman of the
Commission.
Q: Did you have authority to act as Chairman of Commission?
A: As Officer-in-Charge, I believed, because the appointing of the
chairman was given to Officer-in-Charge Mrs. Luz Tinsay and it was
never revoked, it was carried to the time of Atty. Makahig. As
appointed Officer-in-Charge, I had to take the responsibilities and
functions of the Branch Clerk of Court at that time.
Q: But how long have you been with the Court?
A: I have been here for 29 years at present.
Q: And so as Interpreter, all throughout?
A: No, Ma’am, as Clerk.
Q: In charge of civil cases? Criminal cases?
A: In charge of civil cases, criminal cases and even cadastral cases
and special proceedings.
Q: Are you aware that the Court has to issue an order to appoint a
Commissioner?
A: I was aware of that. I was just doing the job as the appointed
Officer-in-Charge and at the same time doing the job of the
responsibility of the Clerk of Court who was on leave at that time.
[8]
TSN, October 29, 2003, pp.5-6; Rollo, pp. 33-34.
[9]
TSN, November 13, 2003, p. 6; Rollo, p. 69.
[10]
Sec. 9, Rule XIV, Omnibus Civil Service Rules.
[11]
367 Phil. 235 (1999), citing Bornasal, Jr. vs. Montes, 280 SCRA 181
(1997), citing Atty. Wilfredo C. Banogon vs. Felipe T. Arias, Sheriff
III, Office of the Clerk of Court, MTCC, Davao City, AM No. P-97-1240,
June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 17.
[12]
342 Phil. 219 (1997), citing Lirios vs. Oliveros, 253 SCRA 258 (1996).
[13]
Cain vs. Neri, 369 Phil. 465 (1999).
|