FIRST DIVISION
PEDRO MAGNAYE,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-02-1615
April 29, 2003
-versus-
ERIBERTO R.
SABAS,
CLERK OF COURT IV,
MTCC, PUERTO
PRINCESA
CITY,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I
O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.
:
On November 27, 1995,
the spouses Pedro and Lorenza Magnaye filed an action for damages and
easment
of right of way against Macario Lagan, Jr., Francisco Rañada and
Jesus Valdeztamon, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 1353 at the
Municipal
Trial Court in Cities of Puerto Princesa City.[1]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Judgment was rendered
on November 24, 1997 as follows:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs and
against
defendant Macario Lagan, Jr.; ordering him to provide, by all means,
plaintiffs
with an adequate outlet to a public highway. As the right of way
has now been disposed of, Macario Lagan, Jr., is hereby ordered to
either
repurchase the same from their present owners or find any other way of
providing a right of way for the plaintiffs. Lagan is further
ordered
to pay plaintiffs litigation expenses in the amount of five thousand
pesos
(P5,000.00).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Should Lagan opt to
repurchase the right of way, defendants Francisco Rañada and
Jesus
Valdeztamon are hereby ordered to resell to Lagan a portion of their
lots
that used to form part of the right of way.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[2]
Subsequently, upon motion
of complainant Pedro Magnaye, a Special Order was issued directing
defendant
Rañada to remove his concrete fence in order to give complainant
a two-meter wide right of way pursuant to the decision.[3]
However, the decision was never executed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Meanwhile, Civil Case
No. 1353 was dismissed on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action. The Municipal Trial Court
ruled that while judgment has already been rendered, the judgment was
nonetheless
void and subject to attack at anytime.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, complainant went
to see respondent Eriberto R. Sabas, Clerk of Court of the Municipal
Trial
Court in Cities, Puerto Princesa City. Respondent agreed to
conduct
an ocular inspection of the site. On October 10, 1999, respondent
went to visit complainant[5]
who reiterated his request for the enforcement of the decision.
Respondent
stated in exasperation, "Putang ina mo, napakatigas ng ulo mo!"[6]
This statement, made in the presence of complainant’s wife, shocked and
embarrassed him.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, complainant filed
an Affidavit-Complaint, charging respondent with Conduct Unbecoming A
Public
Official and Discourtesy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Comment, respondent
alleged that complainant has a penchant for lying; that while the
decision
of the trial court granted him a right of way, it did not specify that
the same must be two meters wide; that complainant had already been
granted
a one and half meter-wide right of way; that during the proceedings,
the
trial judge found out that what complainant really wanted was an
easement
of drainage; that complainant built a fence, a culvert and a concrete
canal
along the right of way, and he got angry when respondent told him he
should
not have done that because the right of way did not belong to him; that
respondent repeatedly explained to complainant that the decision did
not
state that the right of way must be two meters wide, but the latter
insisted
that the structure thereon be demolished; and that in his exasperation,
respondent uttered the words, "Napakatigas talaga ng ulo mong matanda
ka.
Ang hirap mong paliwanagan. Sa ginawa mong iyan ay lumikha ka na
naman ng panibagong kaso. Tiyak na kakasuhan ka niyan ng may-ari
ng lupa."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In compliance with Resolution
dated November 14, 2001, both parties manifested their willingness to
submit
the instant case for resolution based on the pleadings.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Meanwhile, respondent
retired on September 26, 2001; however, he has not received any
retirement
benefits in view of the pendency of three administrative cases filed
against
him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After evaluation, the
Office of the Court Administrator found that respondent failed to act
with
self-restraint and civility when he lost his temper and uttered
unsavory
remarks at the complainant. Thus, it was recommended that the
respondent
be reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the same offense shall
be
dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the recommendation
of the Court Administrator.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
An employee of the judiciary
is expected to accord respect for the person and rights of others at
all
times, and his every act and word must be characterized by prudence,
restraint,
courtesy and dignity. Government service is people-oriented where
high-strung and belligerent behavior is not allowed. No matter
how
commendable respondent’s motives may be, as a public officer, courtesy
should be his policy always.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Rule XIV, Section
23 of the rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292,
Discourtesy
in the Course of Official Duties is considered a light offense, and the
first infraction is punished with a reprimand. We have imposed
the
penalty of reprimand on first-time offenders who were found guilty of
discourtesy.[9]
In the case at bar, respondent is likewise a first-time offender;
hence,
we shall impose upon him the same penalty of reprimand.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, respondent Eriberto R. Sabas, Clerk of Court IV of the
Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, Puerto Princesa City, is hereby found GUILTY of
Conduct Unbecoming A Public Official and of Discourtesy.
Accordingly,
he is REPRIMANDED and warned that a repetition of the same or similar
act
will be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr.,
C.J.,
(Chairman)
, Vitug, Carpio, and
Azcuna,
JJ.
, concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Respondent’s Annex "D".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Complainant’s Annex "A".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Complainant’s Annex "C".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Complainant’s Annex "D".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Affidavit-Complaint, at 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., at 1; Respondent’s Comment, at 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Affidavit-Complaint, at 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Amane v. Mendoza-Arce, A.M. No. P-94-1080, 19 November 1999, citing
Macalua
v. Tiu, Jr., A.M. No. P-97-1236, 11 July 1997.
[9]
Perez v. Cunting, A.M. No. P-02-1630, 27 August 2002; Paras v.
Lofranco,
A.M. No. P-01-1469, 26 March 2001, 355 SCRA 49.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |