ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
A collection of Philippine laws, statutes and codes not included or cited in the main indices of the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 41 -
SUSPENDING MR. NARCISO T. ATIENZA FROM OFFICE FOR ONE (1) MONTH WITHOUT
PAY AS ASSISTANT CITY FISCAL OF QUEZON CITY
This is an administrative case filed by
Mrs. Vicenta de Cruz-Gatdula, mother of the deceased Federico Gatdula,
against Assistant City Fiscal Narciso T. Atienza of Quezon City, for
neglect of duty in the prosecution of Criminal Case No. Q-8517,
entitled "People vs. Danilo Mendoza y Hernandez et al.," for homicide
before Branch IV, of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon
City), arising out of the killing of Federico Gatdula in Quezon City in
1967.
Respondent was the trial fiscal assigned to Branch IV of the then Court
of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City). One of his assignments
included the prosecution of Criminal Case No. Q-8517 against Danilo
Mendoza for the killing of Federico Gatdula in Quezon City on October
5, 1967. On March 13, 1972, the case was set for hearing. The hearing
was postponed upon motion of the defense counsel who sought for a
10-day period counted from the receipt of the transcript of
stenographic notes within which to file a demurrer to evidence. In the
meantime, the trial of the case was set on April 21, 1972, and then
reset to May 15, 1972, due to illness of the defense counsel. The May
15 hearing was reset anew to June 5, 1972, but on the latter date the
hearing was, in open court, ordered reset to June 30 "to give the
defense counsel enough time to prepare for trial."
On June 26, 1972, respondent informed his superiors that he was going
to take a sick leave from June 27 to July 3, 1972, which in fact he
did, and requested that another fiscal take his place to attend to his
cases during his absences. Since respondent was on leave, Fiscal
William Bayhon, upon superior orders, substituted for Fiscal Atienza in
the June 30 hearing. During the June 30 hearing, a motion to dismiss
was filed by the defense on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and
Fiscal Bayhon petitioned for a 10-day period within which to file an
opposition thereto. The substituting fiscal received the copy of said
motion for the fiscal's office and accordingly filed the same in
respondent's folders of cases. Five days after the filing of the motion
to dismiss, or more specifically on July 5, 1972, respondent reported
back for work. He, however, did not file any opposition to the motion.
On August 28, 1972, CFI Judge Walfrido de los Angeles issued an order
dismissing the case against Danilo Mendoza thereby acquitting him.
Judge De los Angeles in said order of dismissal noted that: "the
prosecution was given sufficient time within which to file an
opposition but up to this date no opposition has been received,
notwithstanding the lapse of the period given to the government." It is
on the basis of this quoted pronouncement in the court of dismissal
that Mrs. Vicenta de Cruz-Gatdula, mother of the deceased Federico
Gatdula, made a letter-complaint, dated September 7, 1972, charging
Fiscal Atienza with negligence. Said letter-complaint gave rise to the
present administrative case for neglect of duty, with the following
omissions as specific charges:
"(1)
"(2)
"(3)
Respondent argues that he came to know of the existence of the motion
to dismiss only upon the filing of the administrative case against him.
He further claims that, on June 26, 1972, prior to his leave of
absence, he made arrangements with his superiors relative to the
handling of his cases by another fiscal during his absence; that he
instructed his secretary to refer to him matters that needed his
immediate attention and to make available to the substituting fiscal
all the records of his cases; that, when he reported back for work,
neither his secretary nor Fiscal Bayhon informed him of the motion to
dismiss or what actually transpired during his sick leave, more
specifically that relating to Criminal Case No. Q-8517; that the
Fiscal's copy of the Motion to Dismiss of June 30 was attached to the
folder of another criminal case, entitled "People vs. Jose Santos;" and
that, not having been notified about this motion to dismiss, he could
not have filed an opposition thereto and, hence, he could not be guilty
of the charge of neglect of duty.
Respondent's arguments, assuming them to be true, betray his
negligence. For they speak of his failure to perform his duties as a
prosecutor. Had he, upon his return to duty, devoted a little time to
know the status of his cases as an ordinary lawyer or fiscal would do
under the same or similar circumstances, he could have discovered the
existence of a motion to dismiss the case. This he could have done by
going over the folder-records of the cases himself and he could have
found his copy of the motion. But he did not. The fact that he was
assigned a number of cases did not prevent him to do as suggested above
because it was not a physical impossibility to do so. Again, he could
have asked the court or the fiscal who took over his cases while he was
on leave what the status of the case was. (He claims that he did not
know that the case was set for hearing on June 30, 1972, despite the
fact that the June 5 order resetting the case to June 30, was given in
open court.) But he did not. He chose to wait for someone charitable
enough to call his attention to his duty. He chose to rely on and
follow blindly the word of his secretary who, like him, did not go over
the records of the case and was, therefore, in no position to inform
him of the existence of a motion to dismiss. It is indeed inconsistent
with his position, which carries a high degree of responsibility and
which calls for the exercise of more than ordinary devotion, care and
diligence to justify his negligence from the omissions of others. As a
fiscal, and having been in the "lucrative practice of law" before he
became a fiscal, he is presumed to know that, as what happened in the
case (Gatdula) where the civil action was deemed instituted with the
criminal action, dismissal of the case extinguished the civil action
against the accused. Had respondent shown reasonable concern over the
case, unfortunate consequences could have been avoided. It is obvious
that respondent had not shown that devotion, care and diligence of one
who professes to serve the public interest.
In, view of the foregoing, and as recommended by the Secretary of
Justice, Assistant City Fiscal Narciso T. Atienza of Quezon City is
hereby suspended from office for one (1) month without pay, effective
upon receipt of a copy of this Order.
Done in the City of Manila,
this 19th day of October, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
eighty seven.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.