View full case

CLARA BEEGAN v. TEOTIMO BORJA

FACTS:

In May 1994, an election contest known as Barangay Election Protest No. 18 was filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tanauan, Leyte. A Revision Committee was appointed to handle the revision of three ballot boxes. The committee was composed of respondent Arnulfo Balano as Chairman, and Mr. Prudente Torres and Atty. Luz Polistico as Members. Mr. Torres represented the Protestant and the Intervenor, while Atty. Polistico represented the Protestee.

The revision of the three ballot boxes was completed in October 1994, and the Revision Committee submitted its report to the court in November 1994.

On November 25, 1994, a letter-complaint was submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas, alleging that the Clerk of Court, Teotimo Borja, and Clerk II, Arnulfo Balano, allowed the reopening of the ballot boxes on November 17, 1994, without the court's permission. The reopening was done to machine copy the questioned ballots.

The letter-complaint was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator, which assigned it a docket number of A.M. No. P-95-1171. Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis referred the complaint to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban, Leyte for investigation.

After the investigation, the Investigating Judge absolved the respondents of any prejudice to the complainant but admonished them to be more careful in performing their duties. The Judge found that Atty. Polistico requested the reopening of the ballot boxes, and respondent Borja instructed respondent Balano to determine the propriety of the request. Respondent Balano then asked Mr. Torres, the complainant's revisor, to accompany them to Tacloban City to copy the questioned ballots.

Deputy Court Administrator Abesamis disagreed with the Investigating Judge's recommendation and found the respondents to have violated the rules. He recommended that they be reprimanded for misconduct, with a warning of stiffer penalties for future offenses.

The Office of the Court Administrator also viewed the respondents' actions as misconduct in office as they authorized the reopening of the ballot boxes and copying of the questioned ballots without proper authorization. The presence of the complainant's revisor did not justify the act, as the complainant's counsel and the presiding judge were not present.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the action of allowing a party to an election case to machine-copy certain ballots without judicial authority constitutes misconduct.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled that the respondents did not commit any misconduct. They were found to have performed their duties regularly and properly. The Court exonerated the respondents and ordered the release of Mr. Teotimo D. Borja’s disability retirement benefits.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Judicial processes and operations must adhere to established rules and propriety, particularly in election-related matters.

  • Misconduct in office involves actions contrary to established rules and procedures, potentially causing prejudice or harm.

  • In the absence of prejudice or any irregularities, court personnel actions under a bona fide belief in their authority, and following common court practices, may not constitute misconduct.

  • Proper verification and representation by involved parties are critical during actions concerning sensitive documents like ballots.