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. 91 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF THIRTY (30) DAYS SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY ON
ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR ARTURO A. LLOBRERA, PROVINCIAL
PROSECUTION OFFICE, TARLAC, TARLAC
This refers to the administrative complaint
filed by Marciano Doctor, Romeo Carbonell, Ernesto Delos Santos and
Eufrocino Balmores against Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Arturo A.
Llobrera of Tarlac for neglect of duty, conduct unbecoming of a
prosecution officer and suppression of rights.
The records show that on July 1, 1987, complainants Doctor, et al.,
filed a criminal complaint against Ramon Ping Ting before the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor of Tarlac, docketed as I.S. No. 87-280.
Later, on August 25, 1987, complainant Balmores filed before the same
office a separate criminal complaint against Ting, the complaint
docketed as I.S. No. 87-362. Both cases were assigned to respondent
Prosecutor Llobrera. However, despite the lapse of almost three (3)
years, Prosecutor Llobrera did not act upon the said complaints.
Dismayed by the long delay, Balmores brought such dereliction of duty
to the attention of the Chief State Prosecutor, who, in separate
directives dated April 25, 1990 and May 21, 1990, ordered the
Provincial Prosecutor of Tarlac to make a report on the charges of
neglect of duty filed against Llobrera. When asked to comment on the
said charges filed against him, Llobrera did not reply thereto nor act
upon the criminal complaints filed by the complainants.
On the basis of the foregoing, complainants filed before the Office of
the Ombudsman an administrative complaint for neglect of duty, conduct
unbecoming of a prosecution officer and suppression of rights against
respondent prosecutor. The case was docketed as OMB-ADM-1-96-0541
entitled "Marciano Doctor, et al., versus Arturo A. Llobrera, et al.,".
Despite directives from the Office of the Ombudsman, Llobrera did not
file his counter-affidavit nor submit any controverting evidence to
refute the charges against him. On the basis of the uncontroverted
evidence of the complainants, the Office of the Ombudsman, in an order
dated September 4, 1997, found Llobrera guilty of simple neglect of
duty. The Office of the Ombudsman, noting that this is Llobrera's first
offense, merely recommend that he be suspended from office without pay
for a period of thirty (30) days.
The Secretary of Justice forwarded the above order to this Office for
implementation of the suspension from office of Llobrera, the latter
being a presidential appointee.
With the foregoing findings of the Ombudsman as guide and after
evaluating the records of this case, no other conclusion can be drawn
other than that Llobrera had been remiss in the performance of his
duties. Glaringly unjustifiable delay in resolving the criminal
complaints aforementioned, not even to determine whether or not there
existed a probable cause to criminally charge Ramon Ping Ting in court,
cannot be countenanced by this Office. We have consistently held that
the failure of a prosecutor to decide a criminal complaint or file the
same in court within a reasonable period of time is not excusable and
constitutes gross inefficiency. Such non-observance of the rule,
needless to stress, is a ground for administrative sanction against the
erring prosecutor.
Furthermore, we look with disfavor the reprehensible disregard by
respondent prosecutor of the lawful orders not only of the Office of
the Ombudsman, but also of his superiors for him to submit his
explanation why he neglected or failed to act on the cases assigned to
him despite the lapse of three (3) years. Such disdainful act by the
respondent prosecutor not only cause insolence and disrespect to the
said officials but also, and more importantly, transgresses the right
of the complainants to a speedy disposition of their cases.
The imposition of the penalty of suspension from office without pay is
not undeserved. Prosecutor Llobrera's transgression betrays his failure
to measure up to the stringent standards of his public position. His
gross inefficiency in the performance of his duties and repeated
disregard of the orders of his superiors and the Office of the
Ombudsman are serious violations of the norms of conduct for public
officials.
WHEREFORE, and as recommended by the Office of the Ombudsman, Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor Arturo A. Llobrera of Tarlac is hereby SUSPENDED
from office without pay for a period of THIRTY (30) DAYS, with the
warning that repetition of the same will be dealt with severely by this
Office.
Done in the City of Manila,
this 14th day of October, in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and
Ninety Nine.
chan
robles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.