SECOND DIVISION
ZENY LUMINATE
PRAK,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-03-1738
July 12, 2004 -versus-
EMILADIE T.
ANACAN
COURT STENOGRAPHER III,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
BRANCH 45, SAN JOSE,
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O
N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:cralaw:red
This is a
Complaint
for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and
Violation
of Republic
Act
No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Ethics of Public Officials and
Employees in the Government filed by Zeny Luminate-Prak, in behalf
of his brother Silvestre Luminate, Jr., against herein respondent
Emiladie
Anacan, Court Stenographer III of the Regional Trial Court, San Jose,
Occidental
Mindoro, Branch 45.chanrobles virtual law library
Silvestre
Luminate,
Jr. owned a parcel of land situated in Bubog, San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro,
with an area of 23,063 square meters. The adjoining property
containing
an area of 6,826 square meters belonged to another of the complainant’s
brothers, Dominador Luminate. It was Dominador’s property which
was
initially expropriated by the government for the Rural Road Improvement
Project (RRIP), through the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH).
As Dominador’s property was small, a portion of Silvestre’s property,
constituting
about 3,470 square meters was also taken to complete the 10,296
square-meter
area needed for the road project. Consent to the inclusion of the
subject portion was made pursuant to an Affidavit of Conformity,
purportedly
signed by Silvestre, Jr. The total amount for this consolidated
area
was P2,895,058.88, to be paid by the government in two (2)
installments.cralaw:red
In her
Complaint dated
November 11, 2002,[1]
the complainant alleged that the respondent facilitated the transaction
of the RRIP with the government involving the property of her brother,
Silvestre Luminate, Jr., without the latter’s knowledge and consent.
She
averred that the Affidavit of Conformity could not have been executed
by
her brother since the latter was abroad at that time. It was the
respondent who followed up the claim for payment in the amount of
P2,800,000.00
out of which Silvestre, Jr. should have received P1,079,000.00 as
compensation
for his property. However, Silvestre, Jr. received only P220,000.00
because,
according to the respondent, he was entitled to only P360,000.00 less
40%,
as the latter amount represented attorney’s fees, engineer’s fees and
taxes.cralaw:red
In answer,
the respondent
submitted a Sworn Statement to the Executive Judge on December 16, 2002,[2]
where she denied any participation in the transaction with the
Luminates,
particularly. Silvestre, Jr. She admitted that she facilitated
the
payment for her uncle’s claim, whose property was also affected by the
road-widening project in Mindoro West Coast, Package 1, San Jose-Rizal
Section. When the Spouses Dominador and Ammie Luminate learned
that
she was going to make some follow-ups in Manila, Ammie decided to come
along.chanrobles virtual law library
On March
11, 2002, the
payment of the claims in the road- widening project was funded by the
Department
of Budget and Management, through Sub Allotment Advice (SAA) 1446.
However,
she did not see the name of Silvestre, Jr. among the
claimants/payees.
The respondent further averred that it was Dominador and Ammie Luminate
who received the payments for their property.cralaw:red
In a
Resolution dated
August 25, 2003,[3]
the Court referred the matter to Executive Judge Ernesto P. Pagayatan,
Regional Trial Court, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 46, for
investigation,
report and recommendation.cralaw:red
The
Executive Judge
received the testimonies of both parties.cralaw:red
There were
two (2) pertinent
documents which were submitted to the appropriate agencies to
facilitate
the expropriation of and payment for the portion of land covering 3,470
square meters belonging to Silvestre Luminate, Jr. The
complainant
stressed that these documents could not have been executed by his
brother,
since the latter was in Japan for ten (10) years, from 1992 to February
2002. The complainant accused the respondent of forging her
brother’s
signatures on the following documents:
(1)
Affidavit
of Conformity shown to have been executed on November 19, 1998 by the
brothers
Dominador and Silvestre, where they purportedly agreed to consolidate
their
property into one title “to conform with the legal requirements of the
Department of Public Works and Highways (Occ. Mindoro),” with the
further
request that the title to the combined areas be “facilitated” and
thereafter
“issued in the name of Dominador Luminate as the road right of way”
(Exhibit
“D-16”).chanrobles virtual law library
(2) Special Power
of
Attorney purportedly executed on March 12, 2002 by Silvestre Luminate,
Jr. in favor of his brother Dominador, vesting the latter, among
others,
with the authority to work for his claims for payment of his road lot
corresponding
to a portion of his property covered by TCT No. T-15818, to receive the
proceeds therefrom and to sign all documents pertinent thereto (Exhibit
“D-21”).[4]
Dominador, who
testified
in favor of the complainant, denied having prepared the Affidavit of
Conformity,
but admitted that the signature on it was his. He testified that
the respondent caused him to sign the said document,
among others, with the hurried explanation that
his
signatures were needed to expedite his
claims.
Dominador confessed that he only finished Grade 5 and could not
understand
English. He, likewise, denied knowledge of the Special Power of
Attorney
(SPA) allegedly executed by Silvestre, Jr. in his favor. He,
however,
admitted having received a check in the amount of P1,085,000.00 from
the
DPWH. The check voucher, nonetheless, indicated that the payee
was
“Silvestre Luminate rep. by Dominador Luminate,” and was received by
Dominador
Luminate.
The
respondent, for
her part, denied forging Silvestre, Jr.’s signatures on the Affidavit
of
Conformity and the Special Power of Attorney. She averred that
Ammie
Luminate already had these documents with her when they transacted
together
with the DPWH officials. She stated that it was Ammie Luminate
who
wanted a Special Power of Attorney executed in favor of Dominador so
that
the latter could claim the payments in behalf of Silvestre, Jr.
However,
the respondent admitted having signed as witness to the SPA.cralaw:red
The
Executive Judge
found that the signatures of Silvestre, Jr. on the two (2) questioned
documents,
as compared to his signatures on the Sinumpaang Salaysay[5]
executed on November 20, 2003 regarding this incident, and the Special
Power of Attorney executed in favor of the complainant Zeny Prak,[6]
were different. The Executive Judge concluded that the respondent
was not responsible for the forgeries:chanrobles virtual law library
It is noted
that the
Affidavit of Conformity bearing the real signature of Dominador
Luminate
(Exhibit “D-16”) was executed on November 19, 1998, while the Agency
Agreement
between Dominador Luminate and respondent was executed on March
11,
2002 (Exhibit “A”), or about three (3) years and four (4) months after
the Affidavit of Conformity was executed. Thus, it is illogical
and
certainly not in accordance with the natural course of things to
conclude
that respondent had a hand in the forging of the signature of Silvestre
Luminate in the Affidavit of Conformity.[7]
While the
respondent
might not have had a direct hand in the preparation of the pertinent
documents,
she was, however, aware of the unlawful acts perpetrated by the Spouses
Dominador and Ammie Luminate in facilitating and obtaining the money,
to
the prejudice of Silvestre, Jr. The Executive Judge observed,
thus:
In this
particular case,
respondent acted as witness to a Special Power of Attorney, which gave
authority to the grantee to effectively dispose of the real property of
the grantor and to receive/encash the proceeds thereof involving a
substantial
sum of money. Granting that she did not actually forge
Silvestre’s
signature, she should have been put on guard by the somewhat unusual
circumstances
the document was drawn as she herself has pictured in her
testimony.
Under the circumstances, it appears that she has allowed herself to be
an instrument in perpetrating a dishonest act, which undoubtedly inured
to her benefit, and to Dominador Luminate as well, to the prejudice of
the rightful beneficiary, Silvestre Luminate, Jr.cralaw:red
RECOMMENDATION:
The
foregoing findings
have preponderantly proved that the respondent has exhibited such
conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service, as a consequence of
which,
she should be given STERN WARNING that future similar violations will
be
dealt with more severely.[8]chanrobles virtual law library
We agree
with the findings
of the Executive Judge. The respondent’s participation in the
questioned
transaction was merely to the extent of facilitating the release of
payments
made to the Spouses Dominador and Ammie Luminate by the government as
compensation
for the expropriation of the properties. The couple sought the
respondent’s
help upon learning that she was going to Manila to follow up her
uncle’s
claim, which was similar to theirs. It was the Spouses Dominador and
Ammie
Luminate who approached the respondent. While she does not deny that
she
was promised an amount for her efforts, there is no showing that the
respondent
took advantage of the helplessness of the couple or the illiteracy of
Dominador
Luminate in order to obtain any pecuniary benefit. Thus,
Executive
Judge Pagayatan saw no basis for the charges against the respondent.cralaw:red
Clearly,
the acts complained
of in this administrative case are not connected to the respondent’s
judicial
duties as a stenographer. The Executive Judge took note that the
respondent was careful to file her leave of absence every time she came
to Manila to do the follow- ups.[9]
Nonetheless, it bears stressing that the respondent, as an employee of
the judiciary, must exercise prudence in dealing with people. The image
of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and
otherwise,
of the personnel who work thereat. Thus, the conduct of a person
serving the judiciary must, at all times, be characterized by propriety
and decorum and above all else, be above suspicion so as to earn and
keep
the respect of the public for the judiciary.[10]
The Court would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the
part
of all those involved in the administration of justice, which would
violate
the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to
diminish
the faith of the people in the judiciary.[11]chanrobles virtual law library
As such,
employees of
the judiciary must be wary, and should “tread carefully” when assisting
other persons, even if such assistance sought would call for the
exercise
of acts unrelated to their official functions. Such assistance should
not
in any way compromise the public’s trust in the justice system.
Personal
interests, i.e., pecuniary benefit in the transaction, must give way to
the accommodation of the public.[12]
This is enunciated in the Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
(R.A.
No. 6713) which aims to promote a high standard of ethics and
utmost
responsibility in the public service. The respondent is hereby
enjoined
to observe such conduct.cralaw:red
ACCORDINGLY,
the respondent
is hereby ADMONISHED and given a STERN WARNING that future similar
violations
will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 1.
[2]
Id. at 11.
[3]
Rollo, p. 112.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Report and Recommnedation, pp. 3-4.
[5]
Exhibit “E.”chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Exhibit “I.”chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Report and Recommendation, pp. 5-6.
[8]
Report and Recommendation, pp. 6-7.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
TSN, 20 January 2004, pp. 13-14.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas (Bulacan) v. Pangilinan, 307 SCRA 725
(1999).chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Judge Fe Albano Madrid v. Antonio T. Quebral, etc., A.M. No.
P-03-1744-45,
October 7, 2003.
[12]
See Macalua v. Tiu, Jr. 275 SCRA 320 (1997). |