SECOND DIVISION
REX M.
FUENTEBELLA,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-04-1769
February 5, 2004
-versus-
CLERK OF COURT IV
EDGARDO S. GELLADA,
CLERK IV ANA DINAH
L. PLANTA,AND CLERK
III
ELIZABETH
G. OMBION,
Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O
N
PUNO,
J.:
The case at bar involves
the miniscule sum of a few hundred pesos, the amount of five printer
ribbon
cartridges requisitioned and acquired by the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities
(MTCC) of Bago City, Negros Occidental. The court does not have a
computer and printer. Nevertheless, the pettiness of the sum
involved
does not diminish the responsibility of court employees to conduct
themselves
at all times with propriety and decorum, and above suspicion.
On April 9, 2002, the
Office of the Court Administrator received the sworn affidavit
complaint
of Rex M. Fuentebella, Sheriff III, MTCC of Bago City, charging Clerk
of
Court Edgardo Gellada, Clerk IV Ana Dinah Planta and Clerk III
Elizabeth
Ombion, all from MTCC, Bago City, with dishonesty, grave misconduct in
office, unbecoming conduct and violation of Article 220 of the Revised
Penal Code.[1]
Complainant alleges
that the respondents, in connivance, requisitioned from the government
of Bago City five pieces of Epson computer ribbon cartridges for 9-pin,
#8750 through purchase request dated April 27, 2001. The MTCC of
Bago City does not have a computer, but respondents were allegedly able
to deceive the newly-appointed Judge Herminigildo S. Octaviano into
signing
the purchase request without first verifying if the requisition was
legally
permissible. The ribbons were allegedly to be used in the
personal
computer of respondent Ombion at her residence to print derby
invitations
and notices for the class fund raising and alumni homecoming of Negros
Occidental High School Class ’56 of which respondent Gellada was the
class
president.[2]
Fuentebella admitted, however, that he did not have personal knowledge
that respondent Planta prepared the purchase request for five printer
ribbons
in connivance with and upon suggestion of respondents Gellada and
Ombion.
He only theorized that Planta could not have prepared the purchase
request
without the knowledge and consent of the two. He also did not see
any of the derby notices and invitations which he alleged were printed
using the requisitioned ribbon, but merely overheard respondent Gellada
tell Ombion to print the documents for him.[3]chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent Planta admitted
that she prepared the purchase request for the printer ribbon
cartridges.
She included five computer ribbon cartridges in the request for
supplies,
believing in good faith that these would be useful to the Court as the
MTCC of Bago City does not have a mimeographing machine and the court
always
had to rely on other government offices to print the court’s forms such
as the subpoena, court clearance, and certificate of service, among
others.[4]
She knew that respondent Ombion owned a computer and was certain that
she
would agree to printing office forms that occasionally ran out.
She
requested for the computer ribbon cartridges without asking permission
from Ombion, Clerk of Court Gellada, and Executive Judge Octaviano.[5]
The purchase request was made in April 2001 and the ribbons were
delivered
in August 2001, duly inspected by the auditor of the Commission on
Audit
and accepted by Judge Herminigildo Octavio of the MTCC of Bago City.[6]
Respondent Ombion corroborated
Planta’s story. She admitted that she owns a computer at home and
volunteered to print some office (MTCC) forms as the supply was not
sufficient.
At first, she used her own printer ribbon for this purpose but later,
respondent
Planta gave her one computer ribbon. She did not urge respondents
Planta nor Gellada to acquire five computer ribbon cartridges from the
city government of Bago. In fact, she found out about the
requisition
and acquisition of these ribbons only when respondent Planta gave her
one
cartridge and requested her to print some office forms. She
obliged
and printed about 60 pieces of different office forms. She
admitted
that she printed derby invitations and notices for respondent Gellada
but
this was done months before the computer ribbons were
requisitioned.
Similar to respondent Planta, she contends that the printing of
judicial
forms using the requisitioned ribbon in her personal computer may not
have
been legal but she did this in good faith for the smooth operation of
the
court. She and complainant Fuentebella are good friends and she
understands
Fuentebella’s filing of the complaint as he believed that he was doing
right.[7]chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent Gellada contended
that he did not have a hand in the preparation of the purchase request
to the city government of Bago as he is aware that their MTCC does not
have a computer nor a printer that needs a ribbon cartridge. It
is
customary in their court that respondent Planta prepares the request
for
supplies purchase without informing Gellada. When the supplies
arrive,
Gellada also asks Planta to check the supplies against the purchase
request.
Gellada alleged that when he learned that there were computer ribbon
cartridges
in the court’s supplies, he called a meeting and confronted respondent
Planta about the requisition. He and Planta went to Judge
Octaviano,
and Planta explained to the judge that she requisitioned the computer
ribbon
cartridges for the printing of office forms. Gellada also
instructed
Ombion to return to the court the cartridge that Planta gave her.
Gellada expressed his appreciation for the vigilance of complainant
Fuentebella
in wanting to correct some mistakes in the court, but opined that the
matter
could have been settled with Judge Octaviano. He and Fuentebella
are in good terms.[8]
As to the alleged printing of the derby invitations and notices,
Gellada
claims that this was done on February 3 and 4, 2001, prior to the
preparation
of the April 2001 purchase request for the five ribbon
cartridges.
The invitations and notices were printed in the residence of Ombion
using
her own computer and printer ribbon. He stresses that not one of
the respondents personally benefited from the requisition of the five
computer
ribbons.[9]
Upon recommendation
of the Office of the Court Administrator, Judge Henry J. Trocino,
Executive
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bago City, investigated the
administrative
complaint. His investigation yielded the following findings:
1. The
MTCC,
Bago City has no computer or mimeographing machine of its own and
relied
on the assistance of the other offices in Bago City for the
mimeographing
of their office and judicial forms;chanrobles virtual law library
2. Respondent
Ombion
owns a computer with a printer which she acquired in 1996 for her
use.
She used to print some copies of the judicial forms using her own
computer
and printer free of charge;chanrobles virtual law library
3. Respondent
Planta
is the custodian of all forms used in the court. She was likewise
the person who prepared the purchase request for supplies submitted to
the city government of Bago City, and requisitioned the five (5) pieces
of Epson ribbon cartridges. Presiding Judge Herminigildo
Octaviano
approved the purchase request after being assured by respondent Planta
that all the “papers were in order”;
4. The ribbons
were
delivered to the court and accepted by the Presiding Judge on 10 August
2001;
5. Out of the five
(5)
ribbons, one was given to respondent Ombion who installed the same in
her
printer. Another ribbon was given to OIC Clerk of Court Edmund
Seralde
who also owned a computer with printer but the ribbon was returned
since
it did not fit Seralde’s printer. Four (4) ribbons therefore
remained
unused and were kept in the cabinet of the Presiding Judge, while one
(1)
ribbon was slightly used.[10]chanrobles virtual law library
The investigating judge
concluded that the purchase request for the computer ribbons was not
justified
as the MTCC, Bago City has no computer of its own and the printing of
office
forms using Ombion’s personal computer was not officially
sanctioned.
As Ombion had no official obligation to print the court’s forms using
her
personal computer, she should not be provided computer ribbon at
government
expense. Judge Trocino recommended that the respondents be
reprimanded
for their simple negligence in failing to secure permission from the
presiding
judge before requesting for the computer ribbon cartridges and warned
that
a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future would be
dealt
with more severely.chanrobles virtual law library
The OCA found that all
three respondents had knowledge of the procurement of the computer
ribbons.
Planta prepared the request and gave one ribbon to Ombion. As
Clerk
of Court and administrative officer, Gellada is charged with knowledge
of the supplies used in the court. However, the allegation that
the
ribbon was used for printing derby invitations and notices has no basis
in the records as these were printed in February 2001 using Ombion’s
personal
computer, months before the requisition for ribbons in April
2001.
The OCA did not find bad faith in the respondents’ request for the
ribbons
for printing office forms, but noted that they should have sought
permission
from the presiding judge before preparing the purchase request as the
computer
to be used was privately owned. Nor did the OCA find that the
respondents
benefited personally from the procurement. The OCA also stated
that
although respondents may have done the requisition in good faith to
expedite
the administration of justice, their act was nevertheless “an error of
judgment tantamount to simple negligence for which respondents should
be
held accountable.” Concurring with the investigating judge, the
OCA
recommended, viz:
a) the
present
administrative case be Re-docketed as a regular administrative matter;
andchanrobles virtual law library
b) respondents
Clerk
of Court Edgardo Gellada, Clerk Dinah Planta and Clerk Elizabeth Ombion
be reprimanded with a stern warning that the commission of the same or
similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.[11]
We adopt the factual
findings
of the OCA. While complainant Fuentebella is commendable for
mustering
“enough courage to bring the truth out into the open to put an end to
any
illegal acts and more abuses in the future,”[12]
there is a dearth of evidence that respondents used the requisitioned
computer
ribbon cartridges for their personal gain, specifically to print derby
invitations and notices. Other than Fuentebella’s own assertion
that
the court does not run out of office forms, he has not assailed the
veracity
of the office forms printed by Ombion which were attached to the
respondents’
pleadings. Nevertheless, respondent Planta is faulted for
requisitioning
printer ribbon cartridges even if the MTCC of Bago City did not have a
computer. Similarly, respondent Ombion is liable for printing
judicial
forms without official sanction using a printer ribbon cartridge
acquired
with public funds in her privately-owned computer and printer.
With
respect to respondent Gellada, his failure to approve the vouchers
against
funds appropriated by the city government of Bago, to monitor the
allocation
and distribution of court properties and supplies, and to exercise
control
and supervision over the possession, custody and safekeeping of court
properties
and supplies[13]
facilitated the improper requisition and acquisition of the five
printer
cartridges.
We cannot allow the
practice of requisitioning computer ribbon cartridges for use in a
privately-owned
computer
at home, whether to print personal documents or office forms. It
would be difficult, even impossible, to monitor whether the cartridge
is
used for an official or private purpose. Surely, it would be very
inconvenient and incredible for Ombion to replace the government-owned
computer ribbon cartridge with her own computer ribbon cartridge every
time a personal document is printed. Respondents should have been
more circumspect in their acts. We reiterate that “the conduct
and
behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the
dispensation
of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, should be
circumscribed
with the heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct at all
times
must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but above all
else, it must be above suspicion.”[14]chanrobles virtual law library
However, we do not adopt
the recommendation of the OCA that the respondents should be held
liable
for simple negligence or neglect of duty which under Rule IV, Section
52
(B) (1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service
is punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for
the first offense. Respondents’ fault lies not in their
negligence
in failing to seek the presiding judge’s permission for the requisition
of the computer cartridges; it is the practice itself of requisitioning
computer cartridges by a court without a computer that is
prohibited.
Instead, we find respondents guilty of violation of a reasonable office
rule and regulation that office supplies will be requisitioned and used
only for office equipment and official purposes as stated in the
purchase
request.[15]
Under Rule IV, Section 52 (C)(3) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service, this offense is punishable by reprimand for
the first offense.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, respondents
Clerk of Court EDGARDO GELLADA, Clerk IV ANA DINAH PLANTA and Clerk III
ELIZABETH OMBION are REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that the
commission
of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
Should the MTCC of Bago City already have a computer where the five
computer
ribbon cartridges may be used, the court may retain the five computer
ribbon
cartridges. Otherwise, respondents are ordered to return the five
computer cartridges to the City Government of Bago for the use of other
government offices equipped with computers.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 1. Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code provides, viz:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Art.
220. Illegal use of public funds or property. – Any public
officer
who shall apply any public funds or property under his administration
to
any public use other than that for which such funds or property were
appropriated
by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision correcional in
its minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the total of the
sum misapplied if by reason of such misapplication, any damage or
embarrassment
shall have resulted to the public servicechanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Rollo, pp. 2-3; Affidavit of Rex M. Fuentebella dated April 5, 2002,
pp.
1-2.
[3]
TSN, Rex M. Fuentebella, November 6, 2002, pp. 7-9.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Rollo, pp. 20-21, 23.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
TSN, Ana Dinah Planta, November 6, 2002, pp. 23-24.
[6]
Id., pp. 16-17.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
TSN, Elizabeth G. Ombion, November 7, 2002, pp. 5-13.
[8]
TSN, Edgardo S. Gellada, November 7, 2002, pp. 18-27.
[9]
Rollo, pp. 47-49.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Memorandum from Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño
dated
March 17, 2003, p. 3.
[11]
Memorandum from Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño
dated
March 17, 2003, pp. 4-5.
[12]
Rollo, p. 58; Consolidated Reply of Rex M. Fuentebella, p. 5.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Manual for Clerks of Court, Chapter VII, Section C, p. 129.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Bongalos v. Monungolh, et al., 364 SCRA 311 (2001).chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
Annex A of the Affidavit of Rex M. Fuentebella dated April 3, 2002;
Rollo,
p. 4. See also Sec. 4(2) of P.D. 1445. |