EN BANC
ZENAIDA
C.
GUTIERREZ,
VERNA V. GALVEZ, EVELYN Z. MERRERA,VILMA L. MELENDEZ,
LYDIA A. POLINTAN, RONALDO A. MATABANG,FELIX G. AUSTRIA,
JR., AND RUBY R. ROSARIO,
Complainants, |
A.M.
No.
P-02-1545
April 2, 2003
-versus-
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
RODOLFO
V. QUITALIG,
SHERIFF III AND OFFICER-IN-CHARGE,MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT IN CITIES, SAN CARLOS CITY, PANGASINAN,
Respondent. |
R E S O L U T I
O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:cralaw:red
Before the Court is
a complaint filed by Zenaida C. Gutierrez, Evelyn Z. Merrera, Lydia A.
Polintan, Ruby R. Rosario, Verna V. Galvez, Vilma L. Melendez, Ronaldo
A. Matabang and Felix G. Austria, Jr., all employees of the Municipal
Trial
Court in Cities, San Carlos City, Pangasinan, against Sheriff and
Officer-in-Charge
Rodolfo V. Quitalig for dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct
unbecoming
a court employee.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the joint
Joint-Affidavit
dated February 9, 1999, submitted to the Court, complainants allege the
following: Respondent often indulges in drinking sprees with litigants
and with his friends during office hours at the recreation area of the
Hall of Justice or the canteen. He becomes vulgar, intemperate with his
words and makes sexual comments towards the female staff every time he
gets drunk. There were instances when they had to bring court
clearances
and other documents to be signed by him to the place where he was
drinking.
Sometime in October 1998, respondent brought home the logbook/timebook
of the court in order to fill-up the dates when he was absent.
Respondent
sheriff does not deposit on time fiduciary funds with the Land Bank of
the Philippines. There were instances when the accused and their
bondsmen
had to post their cash bond at the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) because respondent could not be found at the
office. Some criminal case records and exhibits were either
unaccounted
for or were not in the office.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his letter dated
May 3, 1999, addressed to the then Court Administrator Alfredo
Benipayo,
respondent denied the accusations hurled against him and explained
that:
the complaint was merely a ploy of Eduardo Rosario, a legal researcher
in their office, to replace him as acting clerk of court; a report of
the
City Auditor of San Carlos City cleared him of financial
accountability;
a certification of Verna Galvez, Clerk IV, attested that all case
records
and exhibits of their branch were duly accounted for; he does not
indulge in drinking sessions with litigants and friends during office
hours;
and if there were times that he drank alcohol, it was after office
hours
and in the company of RTC Judge Victor Llamas whose invitation he could
not refuse.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court in a
Resolution
dated November 12, 2000, referred the complaint to Executive Judge
Bienvenido
Estrada, RTC, San Carlos City for investigation, report and
recommendation.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, pending
investigation,
the complainants filed a JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE,[4]
prompting Judge Estrada to hold thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Based on my
investigation
and the evidence submitted, undersigned cannot find any iota of
evidence
to indict respondent Rodolfo V. Quitalig in view of the failure of the
complainants to present their evidence and prove their charges.
As
a matter of fact, the complainants have jointly affirmed and confirmed
their JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE, prompting respondent to state
categorically
that he would no longer present his evidence to prove his innocence but
he joined the manifestation of the complainants to dismiss this case."[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, in a letter
received by the Court Administrator on May 15, 2001, complainant Ruby
R.
Rosario alleged that: the affidavit of desistance was prepared by the
respondent
himself; she only signed said affidavit because she was pressured by
her
officemates who thought that respondent has changed and will retire in
August; respondent is back to his old ways of being rude and impolite;
and the decision of Judge Estrada to dismiss the case against
respondent
is contrary to the ruling of this Court in Lapena vs. Pamarang[6]
and Dionisio vs. Gilera[7]
where it was held that the withdrawal of a complaint for lack of
interest
of a complainant does not necessarily warrant the dismissal of an
administrative
complaint.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, the Court, in
another Resolution, dated February 4, 2002, referred the case to Acting
Executive Judge Salvador P. Vedaña, RTC San Carlos City for
reinvestigation,
report and recommendation. The Court likewise resolved to docket
the instant case as a regular administrative matter.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 28, 2002,
Executive
Judge Vedaña submitted his First Indorsement, portions of which
are quoted verbatim, as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"In support to his
comment, respondent, during the hearing denied all the accusations
leveled
against him. He denied the accusation of the complaining
witnesses
that he was drunk during office hours and doing the same at the
recreation
area of the Hall of Justice or at the canteen outside the premises of
the
Hall of Justice. He admitted that he used to drink but not during
office hours and not at the premises of the Hall of Justice. He
denied
that once drunk, he did vulgar acts or uttered intemperate words to his
office mates. He did not insinuate sexual overtures to a female
staff.
He just patted the back of one of the complainants because she was his
"kumadre" and that was done during her birthday.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"He further declared
that there were times when he signed clearances in the canteen because
he normally goes directly to the canteen after serving subpoenas and
writs
of execution in far away places considering that he returns to the
office
at around 1:30 to 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon. He did not
likewise
bring the logbook at home for the purpose of filling it up in order to
make it appear that he was present when in fact he was absent. He
brought the logbook home because he received a letter from Atty.
Corazon
Molo directing him to furnish her with a Xerox copy of the
logbook.
He did not notice or observed the "X" mark placed "by complainant
Zenaida
Gutierrez in the logbook, particularly when he was absent or out of
office.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"He testified that
he had a hand in the deposit of Fiduciary Funds such as bail bonds
and/or
other funds before Mrs. Melendez was appointed as Cash Clerk. He,
however, denied the accusation that he did not deposit the Fiduciary
Fund
at the Land Bank. He admitted that there were times when the
accused
and the bondsman would like to post cash bond and he was nowhere to be
found but he was then on field work serving court processes. When
Mrs. Melendez was not yet appointed as Cash Clerk, he received for
about
five (5) times, cash bonds. Because of his several duties, he sometimes
kept the money in his drawer and not in the steel cabinet because the
latter
had no lock. The cash bond was kept in his drawer for about one (1)
week
before it could be deposited in the bank. He denied the
accusation
of the complainants that he still had to wait for another cash bond to
be posted in order for him to deposit the cash bond which he received
first.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"On the complainants’
accusations regarding respondent’s habitual drunkenness during office
hours,
impolite manners while drunk and tampering with the logbook and losing
the same, the undersigned Investigating Judge finds that while the
complainants
were in unison in their accusations, they however failed to
substantiate
and concretely support the accusations and remained bare
allegations.
No particular dates were specified for the alleged drunkenness, neither
was the logbook subject of their complaint ever presented. On
these
points, this Court hereby gives the benefit of doubt and resolves the
issue
in favor of respondent.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"However, on the
accusation
for fidelity of Fiduciary Funds, the undersigned Investigating Judge
finds
the evidence presented by the complainants, particularly the rundown of
the deposits made during the incumbency of the respondent, to be
sufficient
to support the accusation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"From the same rundown
which covered the period June 13, 1995 to January 13, 2000, it was
shown
that the respondent had not religiously deposited his collections
intact.
What was apparent from the rundown was his habitual practice of lapping
that is, using the current collections to cover for the deposit he made
for his previous or prior collections.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The reason put up
by the respondent that he had to discharge multiple duties is too
shallow
and flimsy. There was no reason for him to keep his collections
for
one (1) week or more, more so to keep the same in his drawer as it was
his bounden duty to religiously remit/deposit the same to the
depositary
bank.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Every employee in
the Judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and
honesty.
Not only is he expected to be well-mannered, civil and considerate in
his
actuations, official or otherwise. As OIC-Clerk of Court,
respondent
Quitalig must be the role model for his co-employees so that he could
be
emulated by them in the performance of their duties.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Again, he is being
charged for not depositing Fiduciary Funds on time. The Honorable
Supreme Court, in its per curiam resolution in A.M. Nos. P-00-1381 and
P-00-1382, July 21, 2001 pronounced, `We have already said that Clerks
of Court may not keep funds in their custody. All collections from bail
bonds, rental deposits and other fiduciary collections shall be
deposited
within twenty four (24) hours by the Clerk of Court concerned upon
receipt
thereof, with the Land Bank of the Philippines. Undue delay in
remitting
collections amounts to no less than grave misfeasance if not
malversation
of funds. No protestation of good faith `can override the
mandatory
nature of the circulars designed to promote the full accountability for
government funds.’"[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Court Administrator
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. agrees with the findings of Judge
Vedaña
and recommends that respondent Sheriff Rodolfo V. Quitalig be FINED in
the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for grave misfeasance and
serious misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the judicial service
with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offenses in the
future shall be dealt with more severely.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court agrees with
the Court Administrator and the Investigating Judge but the amount of
the
fine should be much higher.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Time and again, this
Court has pointed out the heavy burden and responsibility which court
personnel
are saddled with in view of their exalted positions as keepers of the
public
faith. They should therefore be constantly reminded that any
impression
of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official
functions
must be avoided.[12]
Those who work in the judiciary must adhere to high ethical standards
to
preserve the courts’ good name and standing.[13]
They should be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency,
and
they must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence
since
they are officers of the court and agents of the law.[14]
Indeed, any conduct, act or omission on the part of those who would
violate
the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to
diminish
the faith of the people in the judiciary shall not be countenanced.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case,
respondent
is accused of drinking with party litigants and friends during office
hours
by no less than his fellow court employees. He is also charged
with
sometimes going to the office under the influence of alcohol. Some of
the
complainants also say that he makes sexual jokes and once made physical
advances towards a female office mate when he was drunk. While
Judge
Vedaña held that since complainants failed to give specific
dates
as to when these incidents took place and therefore resolved the doubt
in favor of the respondent, it is our view that as an employee of the
judiciary,
respondent has already failed to protect the image of the institution
of
which he is a part and plays an important role in the dispensation of
justice.
In his own testimony, he could not categorically deny that he sometimes
drinks alcohol but merely states in defense that he does so outside of
office hours and outside the premises of the Hall of Justice. He
even admitted that he would sometimes drink within the court premises
but
explains it is only because he could not refuse the offer of an RTC
Judge.
He also could not deny that he touched the back of his female
officemate
but merely downplayed it, explaining that she was his "kumadre."[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As enunciated by this
Court:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Employees of the
judiciary…should
be living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of
official
duties but also in their personal and private dealings with other
people
so as to preserve at all times the good name and standing of the courts
in the community. The image of a court, as being a true temple of
justice,
is aptly mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and
women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its
personnel."[17]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Specifically, as a
sheriff, respondent plays an important role in the administration of
justice.
He is a frontline representative of the justice system, being
indispensably
in close contact with the litigants. He should therefore be
imbued
with a sense of professionalism in the performance of his duties and
his
conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity
of the court.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
More damning than his
inappropriate conduct is his own admission that on several occasions he
received cash bonds as acting Clerk of Court/Officer-in-Charge but
failed
to deposit the same to the authorized bank within the period required
by
the rules. In his own words, he admitted that he kept the cash
bond
in his drawer for a week before depositing them.[19]
As correctly held by the investigating judge, this violates a clear
mandate
of this Court embodied in Circular No. 50-95.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Circular No. 50-95
mandates that all collections from bailbonds, rental deposits, and
other
fiduciary collections shall be deposited within twenty four (24) hours
by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof, with the Land
Bank
of the Philippines.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As the Officer-in-Charge
of the Office of the Clerk of Court, respondent occupies an important
function
and position in the judiciary.[20]
And the fact that he is actually a Sheriff and merely occupies the
position
of a Clerk of Court in an acting capacity does not diminish the
expectation
from him to perform all the duties and responsibilities of a Clerk of
Court.
In the Report on the Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts
of OIC Melinda Deseo, MTC General Trias Cavite,[21]
the Court set aside the recommendation of the Office of the Court
Administrator
to merely admonish an Interpreter, at the same time OIC-Clerk of Court,
who failed to comply with Circular 50-95. The Court held that her
alleged lack of prior training and orientation in administering
Fiduciary
Fund collections cannot relieve her of administrative liability; and
the
Court ordered her suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day without
pay.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Clerks of court are
the chief administrative officers of their respective courts.[23]
They must show competence, honesty and probity since they are charged
with
safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings.[24]
They are judicial officers entrusted to perform delicate functions with
regard to the collection of legal fees and are expected to correctly
and
effectively implement regulations such that even the undue delay in the
remittances of amounts collected by them at the very least constitutes
misfeasance.[25]
Respondent, as acting Clerk of Court, is saddled with the same
responsibility
and is expected to serve with the same commitment and efficiency.
Failing to meet these standards, we find the respondent
administratively
liable for dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming a court
employee.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Based on the records,
respondent had already retired from the service as of August 8, 2001
and
was given clearance on November 28, 2001. In view of the gravity
of his offenses, even if this is his first administrative infraction
and
although he was eventually able to deposit all the amounts that came to
his possession, respondent would have been meted out at the very least,
suspension of six months and one day if he were still an employee of
the
Court. In view of his retirement, we have no recourse but to
impose
on him a fine in the amount of P40,000.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, finding respondent
Rodolfo V. Quitalig guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct
unbecoming a court employee prejudicial to the interest of the judicial
service, he is FINED the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) to
be paid within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and
Azcuna,
JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 3-4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id., p. 13-14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., p. 22.chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law library
[4]
Id., p. 45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., p. 53.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
A.M. No. P-00-1362, February 15, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
A.M. No. P-99-1330, August 12, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Rollo, p. 33.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., p. 102.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Rollo, pp. 193-194.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rollo, p. 228.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Firmalo vs. Quierrez, A.M. No. P-00-1401, January 29, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Agarao vs. Judge Parentela, Jr.; AM-RTJ-00-1561, November 21,
2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Aquino vs. Lavadia, A.M. No. P-01-1483, September 20, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Firmalo vs. Quierrez, supra, note 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
TSN, May 29, 2002, p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS OCA IPI NO. 97-228-P (JUDGE RAFAEL P.
SANTELICES vs. LOIDA B. SAMAR, UTILITY AIDE, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT-LIBRARY,
LEGAZPI CITY); and OCA IPI NO. 97-383-P (JUDGE RAFAEL P. SANTELICES vs.
LOIDA B. SAMAR, OF THE SAME STATION) [A.M. No. 00-1394. January
15,
2002].
[18]
Aquino v. Lavadia, supra, note 14, Tan vs. Dael, A.M. No. P-00-1392,
July
13, 2000.
[19]
TSN, May 29, 2002, p. 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Cabanatan vs. Molina, A.M. No. P-01-1520, November 21, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
A.M. No. 99-11-157-MTC, August 7, 2000chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id., at p. 353.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Report on the Financial Audit, supra note 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Cabanatan supra note 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Report, supra note 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|