View full case

EDNA PALERO-TAN v. CIRIACO I. URDANETA

FACTS:

This case involves an administrative complaint against Ciriaco I. Urdaneta Jr., a Utility Worker I in RTC Branch 14, Baybay, Leyte. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the case be formally docketed and that Urdaneta be fined in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), to be deducted from his retirement benefits. The OCA also recommended the release of the remaining retirement benefits to Urdaneta. The parties were required by the Court to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed. Both Urdaneta and the complainant manifested their willingness to do so. The Court agreed with the conclusion of the Investigating Attorney, noting that Urdaneta had been given opportunities to present a defense but failed to do so. Urdaneta admitted to finding a small plastic sachet containing the complainant's ring and bracelet and keeping them until he purportedly threw them away.

The Court further received a Memorandum from Atty. Fabriga, bringing to its attention a pending case involving Urdaneta. The parties were then required to submit their respective Memoranda. Respondent, through his Manifestation, informed the Court that his counsel had retired, but will submit a Special Power of Attorney to authorize another lawyer to represent him. A copy of the Special Power of Attorney was subsequently submitted by respondent's new counsel, Atty. Noel Nalupta.

In a Resolution, the Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the OCA. It agreed that Urdaneta should be found guilty of Grave Misconduct and be dismissed from service with forfeiture of benefits, except accrued leave credits. The Court also concurred with the directive to Judge Absalon U. Fulache to implement the resolution and take preventive measures to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent is guilty of dishonesty and in bad faith for not informing his officemates about the jewelry he found.

  2. Whether the respondent stole the complainant's ring and bracelet.

  3. Whether the respondent had the intention to appropriate the jewelry for himself.

  4. Whether the respondent's act of finding the jewelry without returning them to the rightful owner constitutes gross misconduct.

  5. Whether or not respondent Ciriaco I. Urdaneta, Jr. is guilty of Grave Misconduct.

RULING:

  1. The respondent is guilty of dishonesty and in bad faith. The respondent admitted to finding the jewelry and keeping it in his possession without informing his officemates about it. This admission, coupled with the positive evidence submitted by the complainant, undermines the respondent's denial and shows his lack of credibility. Denial is inherently a weak defense and must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to be believed. In this case, the respondent's denial crumbles in the face of positive declarations.

  2. Although there is no direct evidence that the respondent stole the complainant's ring and bracelet, the testimonies of the complainant's officemate, Antone, indicate that the respondent and his wife had a quarrel over the same ring and bracelet. This constitutes substantial evidence required in administrative proceedings. The unbroken chain of hard and solid facts, established by trustworthy and reliable evidence, points to the respondent's act of finding the jewelry and keeping it for himself in a dishonest and bad faith manner.

  3. The Court found that the respondent had the intention to appropriate the jewelry for himself based on his failure to inform the owner and his officemates about the jewels and his suspicious conclusion that they belonged to a litigant instead of his officemates.

  4. The Court held that the respondent's act of finding the jewelry without returning them to the rightful owner constitutes gross misconduct, a transgression of established rules and a dereliction of his duty as a court employee.

  5. Respondent Ciriaco I. Urdaneta, Jr. is guilty of Grave Misconduct and is imposed a fine of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00), to be deducted from his retirement benefits. The Financial Management Office of the Office of the Court Administrator is directed to release the remaining amount of the retirement benefits to respondent.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Denial is a weak defense and must be corroborated by strong evidence of non-culpability to be believed.

  • In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence.

  • Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

  • When a person finds a lost thing, he acquires physical custody but not legal possession, and his duty is to restore the thing to its owner.

  • The finder of a lost property is obligated to report it to the proper authorities and make efforts to locate the owner.

  • Every employee of the judiciary should exhibit the highest sense of trustworthiness, integrity, and rectitude in their official duties and personal dealings to preserve the court's good name and standing.

  • Misconduct is a transgression of established rules of action, while gross misconduct is a transgression that is beyond allowance and flagrant.

  • Grave misconduct in the nature of grave offenses is punishable by dismissal from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government service.

  • Grave Misconduct as a ground for disciplinary action.

  • Deduction of penalty from retirement benefits.

  • Consideration of factors such as commendable service and absence of previous administrative cases in determining the appropriate penalty.