SECOND DIVISION
CONCERNED CITIZEN,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-04-1876
(formerly
OCA-IPI-04-1958-P)
August 31, 2004 - versus -
ROLANDO “BOYET”
BAUTISTA,
PROCESS
SERVER,RTC-
OCC,BALANGA CITY, BATAAN,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
R E S O L U T I O
N
TINGA,
J.
:
On November 18, 2003, the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a handwritten
Letter-Complaint
from a “Concerned Citizen” accusing Mr. Rolando “Boyet” Bautista,
Process
Server, OCC-RTC, Balanga City, Bataan, of violating
Administrative
Circular No. 5[1]
dated October 4, 1988 of the Court, which enjoins “all officials and
employees
of the Judiciary from being commissioned as insurance agents or from
engaging
in any such related activities.”chanrobles virtual law library
Together with his letter-complaint,
the anonymous complainant submitted the Sinumpaang Salaysay of one
Orlando
Pinili y Lacson (Pinili) of Tenejero, Balanga City, Bataan, the
Personal
Bail Bond issued by the Plaridel Surety and Insurance Company (Plaridel
Surety) to secure his provisional liberty in Criminal Case No. 6333 of
the 3rdchanrobles virtual law library
Municipal Circuit Trial
Court (MCTC) of Orion-Pilar, Bataan and other papers related thereto.cralaw:red
As culled from the Letter-Complaint
and Pinili’s affidavit, the antecedents are as follows.cralaw:red
In July 2003, Pinili
was detained for violation of Section 11, Article 2 of RA 9165.[2]
Claiming that he is a legitimate agent of Plaridel Surety, respondent
offered
his services to facilitate the processing of Pinili’s bail bond. He was
able to secure a bond for Pinili’s release. Later on, it was discovered
that the license of the surety company had already expired when it
issued
the bond.chanrobles virtual law library
On April 1, 2004, the
OCA referred the anonymous letter-complaint to Honorable Manuel M. Tan,
Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Balanga City, Bataan,
for
investigation, report and recommendation.cralaw:red
On May 3, 2004, the
OCA received a letter dated April 22, 2004 from the respondent,
together
with his own affidavit and those of two others.[3]
Asserting that the allegation about his role in the processing of
Pinili’s
bail bond is not true as he did not know Pinili, he declared that it
was
Mr. Leopoldo Aringo, the authorized representative of Plaridel
Surety,
who facilitated Pinili’s bail bond. However, he admitted that
there
were instances that he was asked where to secure bail bonds and he
obliged
by referring the matter to Plaridel Surety but he did so only to help
and
without any intent to gain.[4]chanrobles virtual law library
On May 19, 2004, the
OCA received the letter-report dated April 26, 2004 of Judge Tan.
He stated that Mr. Aringo confirmed that respondent assisted
accused
persons in processing their bail bonds and that respondent himself
admitted
to him having helped facilitate bail bonds procured through Plaridel
Surety.
He recommended a light penalty for the infraction of the respondent.cralaw:red
Finding respondent’s
admission that he sometimes helped facilitate bail bonds procured
through
Plaridel Surety as a clear proof that he violated Administrative
Circular
No. 5, the OCA recommended that respondent be fined Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00), with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar
offense
in the future shall be dealt with more severely. The OCA considered the
fact that it was the first complaint against the respondent.cralaw:red
The Court agrees with
the findings of the OCA, as well as its recommended penalty.
chan
robles virtual law library chan robles virtual law library
The avowed objective
of Administrative Circular No. 5 dated October 4, 1988 is to
ensure
that the entire time of the officials and employees in the Judiciary be
devoted to their official work to insure the efficient and speedy
administration
of justice. Unlike that of the rest of the government work force, the
nature
of work of the officials and employees of the courts requires them to
serve
with maximum efficiency and the highest degree of devotion to duty in
order
to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary.cralaw:red
Spread across the record
are more than substantial evidence establishing respondent’s violation
of the Circular, Judge Tan pointed to the admission of the respondent
himself
and the statement of Mr. Aringo concerning respondent’s participation.
Indeed, respondent made admissions both in his letter and affidavit.
Although
he submitted the affidavits of Mr. Aringo and Ms. Ongoco, there is
nothing
there which explicitly exculpates him in any way.cralaw:red
This being respondent’s
first offense, however, a fine of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos is
appropriate.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, respondent
ROLANDO “BOYET” BAUTISTA, Process Server, OCC-RTC, Balanga City,
Bataan,
is found GUILTY of violating Administrative Circular No. 5 dated
October
4, 1988 of the Court. He is ORDERED to pay a FINE of Five Thousand
Pesos
(P5,000.00), with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or a
similar
act shall be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Austria-Martinez, J.,
(Acting Chairman),
Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ.,
concur.
Puno, J., on official
leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
TO : ALL OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE JUDICIARY
SUBJECT
: PROHIBITION TO WORK AS INSURANCE AGENT
In
line with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules,
the
Executive Department issued Memorandum Circular No. 17 dated September
4, 1986 authorizing heads of government offices to grant their
employees
permission to "engage directly in any private business, vocation or
profession
x x x outside of office hours."chanrobles virtual law library
However,
in its En Banc Resolution dated October 1, 1987, denying the request of
Atty. Froilan L. Valdez of the Office of Associate Justice Ameurfina
Melencio-Herrera
to be commissioned as a Notary Public, the Court expressed the view
that
the provisions of Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the Executive
Department
are not applicable to officials or employees of the courts considering
the express prohibition in the Rules of Court and the nature of their
work
which requires them to serve with the highest degree of efficiency and
responsibility, in order to maintain public confidence in the
Judiciary.
The same policy was adopted in Administrative Matter No. 88-6-002-SC,
June
21, 1988, where the court denied the request of Ms. Esther C. Rabanal,
Technical Assistant II, Leave Section, Office of the Administrative
Services
of this Court, to work as an insurance agent after office hours
including
Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Indeed, the entire time of Judiciary
officials and employees must be devoted to government service to insure
efficient and speedy administration of justice.chanrobles virtual law library
ACCORDINGLY,
all officials and employees of the Judiciary are hereby enjoined from
being
commissioned as insurance agents or from engaging in any such related
activities
and, to immediately desist therefrom if presently engaged thereat.chanrobles virtual law library
See
also Pimentel v. De Leoz, A.M. No. P-02-1620, April 1, 2003, 400 SCRA
193.
[2]
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Ms. Sophia J. Ongoco, an employee of the MTCC of Orion-Pilar, Bataan
and
Leopoldo F. Aringo, the agent and authorized representative of
the
Plaridel Insurance and Surety Company in Balanga City, Bataan.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Respondent stated in his letter, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Kung
sa nakaraang pagkakataon ako ay nakapag-refer kung saan puwedeng
magpiyansa
ang ilang nagtanong at nakiusap sa akin, iyon ay ginawa ko lamang
bilang
pagtulong sa tao ng walang interes o pakinabang. Kung ito ay
hindi
tama at hindi maganda sa imahen ng ating kagalang-galang na hudikatura
buong katapatan ko pong hindi na muling gagawin ito upang maiwasan ang
maling kaisipan ng nagreklamo laban sa akin.chanrobles virtual law library
and
in his affidavit, the following :chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
11.
Ang natatandaan ko lamang na nagawa ko na maaaring ikinanasama ng loob
ng kung sino mang nagrereklamo sa akin ay ang ilang pagkakataon na akoy
ay nag-refer na sa Plaridel Insurance Company magtungo dahil sa may mga
nagtanong sa akin kung saan sila puwedeng magpiyansa ng surety dahil
sila
ay walang sapat na pera para sa cash bond.chanrobles virtual law library
12.
Ang pagrefer ko sa kung saan sila puwedeng magpiyansa ay pagtulong ko
lamang
sa mga nagtatanong sa akin. Ito ay walang kapalit o pakinabang sa
akin.
At kung dahil sa pagtulong kong ito ako pa ay irereklamo, hinding-hindi
ko na gagawin na ako ay magrefer kahit saang bonding company kung saan
puwedeng lumapit ang mga akusado kahit na sila ay magtanong o makiusap
pa sa akin.
x
x xchanrobles virtual law library
14.
Inuulit ko po na kung hindi tama at maganda ang aking nagawang
pagtulong
sa mga lumapit sa akin at nagtanong kung saan puwede silang magpiyansa
ng surety, na kung saan ay itinuro ko lamang ang Plaridel Insurance
Company,
ito ay hindi ko na muling gagawin. Iiwasan ko na po na mag-refer kahit
saan mang surety company kahit na nakikiusap pa sa akin ang
sinuman.
Ito ay upang mapanatili na malinis ang aking konsiyensa at ako ay hindi
mapaghinalaang nakikinabang o tumanggap ng anumang pabuya. |