EN BANC
OFFICE OF THE
COURT
ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-03-1726
(formerly A.M.
No.
03- 7-403-RTC)
July 22, 2004
-versus-
DOMINIQUE D. JUAN,
Respondent.
(FORMERLY
REPORT
OF JUDGE MA. THERESA L. DELA TORRE-YADAO,
RTC -
BRANCH 81,
QUEZON
CITY ON THE MISSING EXHIBIT (GUN)IN
CRIMINAL CASE
NO. Q-00-97420)
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
PER
CURIAM:
This Administrative
Case stemmed from a Letter dated 8 May 2003 of Judge Ma. Theresa L.
Dela
Torre-Yadao (“Judge Dela Torre-Yadao”) of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon
City, Branch 81 (“RTC-Branch 81”), addressed to Chief Justice Hilario
G.
Davide, Jr., informing him that a gun marked as an exhibit in a
criminal
case was missing.
During the hearing on
7 May 2003 of a criminal case for Parricide entitled “People of the
Philippines
v. Garchitorena”[1]
assigned to Judge Dela Torre-Yadao of RTC-Branch 81, the defense
counsel
verbally requested the production of Exhibit “E.” Exhibit
“E”
was a 9mm CZ pistol with serial no. E5483 (“CZ Pistol”) involved in the
shooting incident subject of the criminal case. Philander Rino del
Castillo
(“Del Castillo”), the Criminal Case Docket Clerk, could not find the CZ
Pistol in the steel cabinet where exhibits were kept. Thus, in a letter
dated 8 May 2003,[2]
Judge Dela Torre-Yadao informed Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.,
thru
Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., of the missing CZ
Pistol.
In a subsequent letter,[3]
Judge Dela Torre-Yadao wrote that late in the afternoon of 19 May 2003,
Dominique D. Juan (“respondent”), the Branch Process Server, confessed
to her in the presence of the Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Arthur A.
Pefianco
(“Pefianco”) and Del Castillo that respondent took the CZ Pistol
including
the magazine and cartridges. On 20 May 2003, respondent surrendered and
turned over the CZ Pistol, including the magazine and cartridges, to
Del
Castillo in the presence of Pefianco and Court Legal Researcher
Faustina
Fernandez.[4]
On the same date, respondent tendered his resignation as branch process
server.[5]chanrobles virtual law library
In the Resolution dated
30 July 2003, this Court, on recommendation of the Office of the Court
Administrator (“OCA”), referred the matter to Vice-Executive Judge
Natividad
G. Dizon (“Investigating Judge”) of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 106, for investigation, report and recommendation. This
Court
also considered the resignation of respondent from the service as
without
prejudice to the outcome of the investigation and further held in
abeyance
the grant of clearance and release of benefits to him.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent did not appear
during the entire investigation despite notices to him.[6]
Judge Dela Torre-Yadao appeared and submitted her Affidavit narrating
the
circumstances on the missing CZ Pistol. Pefianco and Del Castillo
also appeared at the investigation and submitted a Joint Affidavit.cralaw:red
The Investigating Judge
found that respondent took the CZ Pistol without the knowledge and
consent
of the accountable officer of the court. Respondent later surrendered
the
CZ Pistol with its magazine and cartridges as evidenced by a receipt.[7]
The Investigating Judge recommended that respondent be dismissed from
the
service with forfeiture of all benefits and that the proper criminal
action
be filed against him.cralaw:red
The case was referred
to OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.[8]
The OCA found respondent guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct when
he took the CZ Pistol. Respondent admitted his guilt when he
voluntarily
returned the CZ Pistol to the court. The OCA reiterated that court
personnel
should always act beyond reproach, ever conscious of their heavy
responsibility.
The OCA recommended the dismissal of respondent from the service with
forfeiture
of benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to
re-employment
in any branch of the government or any of its agencies, including
government
owned and controlled corporation.cralaw:red
We agree with the recommendation
of the OCA and the Investigating Judge to dismiss respondent from the
service.cralaw:red
Annex “C”[9]
of the Report of Branch Clerk of Court Pefianco is the receipt, signed
by respondent himself, showing that Del Castillo received from
respondent
the following marked evidence for the prosecution:chanrobles virtual law library
1.
one
(1) 9mm CZ 75 compact pistol with serial no. E5483 marked as Exh. E;chanrobles virtual law library
2. one
(1)
9mm fired cartridge case marked as Exh. F;chanrobles virtual law library
3. one
(1)
deformed metallic jacket of 9mm fired bullet marked as Exh. F
(unrecovered);chanrobles virtual law library
4.
one (1) magazine for 9mm pistol marked as Exh. G;chanrobles virtual law library
5.
eleven (11) 9mm cartridges marked as Exh. H.
It is not clear why and
how respondent took the CZ Pistol.
As a process server,
respondent (1) serves court processes such as subpoenas, subpoenas
duces
tecum, summonses, court orders and notices; (2) prepares and submits
returns
of service of processes, (3) monitors messages or delivers court mail
matters;
(4) keeps in custody and maintains a record book of all mail matters
received
and dispatched by the court; and (5) performs such other duties as may
be assigned by the Presiding Judge or Clerk of Court.[10]
Thus, as a process server, respondent had no right or duty to take
possession
of the CZ Pistol.cralaw:red
The clerk of court is
the custodian of the records, papers, files, exhibits and public
property
of the court. It is the clerk of court’s duty to keep safely all
records,
papers, files, exhibits and public property committed to his charge,
including
the library of the court and the seal and furniture belonging to his
office.[11]
This custodial duty of the clerk of court extends to evidence submitted
by the parties and marked as exhibits.chanrobles virtual law library
The CZ Pistol was discovered
missing during the hearing on 7 May 2003 in the criminal case for
Parricide
when the defense counsel requested the production of the CZ Pistol. It
was only on 19 May 2003 that respondent confessed that he took the CZ
Pistol
with its magazine and cartridges. During the investigation on the
missing
CZ Pistol, respondent failed to appear despite notices sent to him.
Respondent’s
refusal to appear before the investigating judge, and his precipitate
resignation
from the service, are clear indicia of guilt. Respondent’s act of
taking
the CZ Pistol constitutes dishonesty and grave misconduct.cralaw:red
Under Section 22, Rule
IV of the Civil Service Rules, dishonesty and grave misconduct are
grave
offenses punishable by dismissal from the service even if it is the
first
offense. Respondent’s resignation does not render the case moot.
Resignation is not a way out to evade administrative liability when a
court
personnel is facing administrative sanction.[12]
In one case,[13]
we found a utility worker guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct in
the loss of a .45 caliber pistol offered in evidence in a criminal
case,
despite the court’s acceptance of his resignation.chanrobles virtual law library
Once again, we stress
that court employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk,
being
public servants in an office dispensing justice, should always act with
a high degree of professionalism and responsibility. Their conduct must
not only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be in
accordance with the law and court regulations.[14]
No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from
its
holder than an office in the judiciary. Court employees should be
models of uprightness, fairness and honesty to maintain the people’s
respect
and faith in the judiciary. They should avoid any act or conduct that
would
diminish public trust and confidence in the courts. Indeed, those
connected with dispensing justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility.[15]
WHEREFORE, we find respondent
DOMINIQUE D. JUAN GUILTY of dishonesty and grave
misconduct.
Accordingly, his retirement and all other benefits, except
accrued
leave credits, are FORFEITED. Respondent is also DISQUALIFIED from
re-employment
in any branch of the government or any of its agencies or
instrumentalities,
including government owned and controlled corporations.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, C.J., Puno,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario,
JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-00-94720.
[2]
Rollo, p. 5.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Ibid., p. 4.
[4]
Ibid., p. 6.
[5]
Ibid., p. 7.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Report of the Investigating Judge, p. 6.
[7]
See note 3.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Resolution of 21 January 2004.
[9]
Rollo, p. 20.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Musni v. Morales, 373 Phil. 703 (1999) citing the Manual for Clerks of
Court.
[11]
Rules of Court, Rule 136, Section 7; Manual for Clerks of Court,
Chapter
II, Section A.
[12]
Clerk of Court Marbas-Vizcarra v. Florendo, 369 Phil. 840 (1999); Judge
Cajot v. Cledera, 349 Phil. 907 (1998).
[13]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Ferrer, 347 Phil. 667 (1997).chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Albior v. Auguis, A.M. No. P-01-1472, 26 June 2003, 405 SCRA 1.
[15]
Castelo v. Florendo, A.M. No. P-96-1179, 10 October 2003.chanrobles virtual law library |