FIRST DIVISION
[ A. M. No. P-93-794, February 18, 1999 ]OCA v. ANASTACIA DIAZ +
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ANASTACIA DIAZ, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, ABORLAN-KALAYAAN, PALAWAN, RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
OCA v. ANASTACIA DIAZ +
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ANASTACIA DIAZ, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, ABORLAN-KALAYAAN, PALAWAN, RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
KAPUNAN, J.:
Sometime in October 1992, Mayor Rafael R. Ortega, together with Chief of Police Senior Inspector Leopoldo M. Pacaldo of Aborlan, Palawan, sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in looking into the alleged nefarious activities of
herein respondent Anastacia Diaz, then Clerk of court of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Aborlan-Kalayaan, Palawan.[1]
On October 20, 1992, NBI agents acting pursuant to an entrapment plan, caught respondent in the act of receiving (marked) money from one Anita Taguno who had a case pending before said MCTC and from whom the former allegedly demanded money earlier on.[2]
Records show that two other affidavit-complaints were filed against Mrs. Diaz: the first, by one Yolly Capucao who alleged that sometime in August 1992, respondent approached her and demanded the amount of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) for the release of her father-in-law who was detained at the Aborlan Police Station; and, the second, by Ms. Marina Beira who alleged that she gave the amount of four Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P4,500.00) to respondent to expedite her son's case in the same court.[3]
Consequently, a complaint for direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) was filed against respondent with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. In a Resolution dated April 28, 1993, said Office recommended the filing of an information for two counts of direct bribery under R.A. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It further ordered that the records of this case be forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate action.[4]
The Office of the Ombudsman in turn, approved the above resolution with the modification that an information be filed against respondent for only one count of direct bribery under Article 210 of the RPC and that the provisions of R.A. 3019 no longer be applied in her case.[5]
The records further reveal that a criminal case was indeed filed against respondent, but for violation of Article 315, par. 2, sub-par. (a) of the Revised Penal Code. Said case was subsequently dismissed by the MCTC, Aborlan-Kalayaan, Palawan, on the ground that private complainant therein, Ms. Anita Taguno had executed an Affidavit of Desistance alleging, among others, that she had already lost interest in the case.[6]
Meanwhile, on November 25, 1992, Atty. Gerarda G. Galang, Chief of the Legal and Evaluation Division of the NBI, submitted a Report to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCAD, for brevity) on the results of the investigation they conducted in the Diaz case, with the recommendation that administrative action be taken against the respondent.[7]
In its En Banc Resolution dated February 4, 1993, this Court upon the recommendation of Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez, directed the OCAD to file the appropriate administrative complaint against respondent for Grave Misconduct and for Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; and, consequently, preventively suspended respondent from the service.[8]
On April 5, 1993, respondent submitted a letter to the OCAD requesting therein that the order of preventive suspension be lifted since probable cause against her had yet to be determined in the preliminary investigation of the criminal case.[9]
On May 3, 1993, this Court issued a resolution requiring respondent to comment on the administrative complaint of Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez.[10]
In compliance with the above resolution, respondent filed her Comment in which she adopted the allegations in her counter-affidavit and motion for reconsideration (in the criminal case).[11]
On August 9, 1993, the First Division of this Court resolved to recall the preventive suspension of respondent as ordered in the Resolution of February 4, 1993, and to suspend the administrative proceedings against her until the termination of the criminal case.[12]
On July 9, 1996, the above-mentioned criminal case against respondent was dismissed by the MCTC, Aborlan-Kalayaan, Palawan, on the ground that the private complainant therein, Ms. Anita Taguno had executed an Affidavit of Desistance alleging, among others, that she had already lost interest in the case.[13]
Thereafter, the OCAD recommended that the complaint be referred to the lower court for investigation, report and recommendation despite the dismissal of the criminal complaint, and the compulsory retirement of respondent on February 13, 1995.
On December 2, 1996, this Court resolved to revive the case against Anastacia Diaz; to refer the same to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan for investigation, report and recommendation; and, to release her retirement benefits, but retain the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) pending resolution of the case.[14]
At the investigation conducted by Palawan RTC Executive Judge Panfilo Salva, the complaining witnesses Anita Taguno, Yolly Capucao and Marina Beira declared that they were no longer interested in pursuing their complaints because the sums of money that they gave to respondent had already been allegedly given to their lawyers.[15]
Respondent for her part, while denying that she demanded money from the complainants, admitted having received separate sums of money from all the complainants, but for the purpose of delivering the same to other persons for whom the amounts were allegedly intended.
Thus, respondent testified:
On May 8, 1998, the OCAD submitted its Report with the following recommendations: 1) that respondent Anastacio Diaz be found guilty of Grave Misconduct; 2) that a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,00.00) be imposed upon respondent to be deducted from the Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) already withheld from her retirement benefits; and, 3) that the remaining Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) be released to her subject to the availability of funds and the usual clearance requirements.
We adopt the recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator.
There is no doubt that respondent actually received sums of money from the above-named complainants. As noted by the OCAD, respondent's claim that the amount received were intended for a lawyer does not inspire belief, for the litigants could have handed them directly to the lawyer concerned and not through an employee of the court. The fact that respondent received money from litigants is enough basis for sanctioning her for grave misconduct.
The fact that the criminal case against respondent was dismissed is of no moment. The dismissal of the criminal case against respondent does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative case arising from the same set of facts, since the quantum of evidence that is required in the latter is only substantial evidence, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt that is required in criminal cases.
That respondent has retired from the service is of no consequence either, since the jurisdiction of the court at the time of the filing of the complaint is not lost by the mere fact that respondent public official had ceased to be in office during the pendency of the case.[19]
Finally, this Court had consistently held that the conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them be free from suspicion that may taint the judiciary.[20]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court finds respondent Anastacia Diaz guilty of Grave Misconduct, and hereby imposes on said respondent a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), said amount to be deducted from the Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) withheld from her retirement benefits. The amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) constituting the remainder of said benefits is hereby ordered released in respondent's favor.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Melo, and Pardo, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 1.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Id., at 10-11
[4] Records, pp. 102-108
[5] Id., at 100-101
[6] Id., at 99
[7] Rollo, p. 8.
[8] Id., at 24.
[9] Id., at 48.
[10] Id., at 47.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Id., at 52.
[13] Id., at 55.
[14] Rollo, p. 63.
[15] TSN, June 17, 1997, pp. 3-5.
[16] TSN, September 29, 1997, pp. 6-13.
[17] TSN, September 29, 1997, pp. 16-17.
[18] At p. 4 thereof.
[19] Atty. Romeo S. Perez vs. Judge Carlos Abiera, 64 SRCA 302 (1975).
[20] Gano vs. Leonen, 232 SCRA 98 (1994).
On October 20, 1992, NBI agents acting pursuant to an entrapment plan, caught respondent in the act of receiving (marked) money from one Anita Taguno who had a case pending before said MCTC and from whom the former allegedly demanded money earlier on.[2]
Records show that two other affidavit-complaints were filed against Mrs. Diaz: the first, by one Yolly Capucao who alleged that sometime in August 1992, respondent approached her and demanded the amount of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) for the release of her father-in-law who was detained at the Aborlan Police Station; and, the second, by Ms. Marina Beira who alleged that she gave the amount of four Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P4,500.00) to respondent to expedite her son's case in the same court.[3]
Consequently, a complaint for direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) was filed against respondent with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. In a Resolution dated April 28, 1993, said Office recommended the filing of an information for two counts of direct bribery under R.A. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It further ordered that the records of this case be forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate action.[4]
The Office of the Ombudsman in turn, approved the above resolution with the modification that an information be filed against respondent for only one count of direct bribery under Article 210 of the RPC and that the provisions of R.A. 3019 no longer be applied in her case.[5]
The records further reveal that a criminal case was indeed filed against respondent, but for violation of Article 315, par. 2, sub-par. (a) of the Revised Penal Code. Said case was subsequently dismissed by the MCTC, Aborlan-Kalayaan, Palawan, on the ground that private complainant therein, Ms. Anita Taguno had executed an Affidavit of Desistance alleging, among others, that she had already lost interest in the case.[6]
Meanwhile, on November 25, 1992, Atty. Gerarda G. Galang, Chief of the Legal and Evaluation Division of the NBI, submitted a Report to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCAD, for brevity) on the results of the investigation they conducted in the Diaz case, with the recommendation that administrative action be taken against the respondent.[7]
In its En Banc Resolution dated February 4, 1993, this Court upon the recommendation of Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez, directed the OCAD to file the appropriate administrative complaint against respondent for Grave Misconduct and for Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; and, consequently, preventively suspended respondent from the service.[8]
On April 5, 1993, respondent submitted a letter to the OCAD requesting therein that the order of preventive suspension be lifted since probable cause against her had yet to be determined in the preliminary investigation of the criminal case.[9]
On May 3, 1993, this Court issued a resolution requiring respondent to comment on the administrative complaint of Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez.[10]
In compliance with the above resolution, respondent filed her Comment in which she adopted the allegations in her counter-affidavit and motion for reconsideration (in the criminal case).[11]
On August 9, 1993, the First Division of this Court resolved to recall the preventive suspension of respondent as ordered in the Resolution of February 4, 1993, and to suspend the administrative proceedings against her until the termination of the criminal case.[12]
On July 9, 1996, the above-mentioned criminal case against respondent was dismissed by the MCTC, Aborlan-Kalayaan, Palawan, on the ground that the private complainant therein, Ms. Anita Taguno had executed an Affidavit of Desistance alleging, among others, that she had already lost interest in the case.[13]
Thereafter, the OCAD recommended that the complaint be referred to the lower court for investigation, report and recommendation despite the dismissal of the criminal complaint, and the compulsory retirement of respondent on February 13, 1995.
On December 2, 1996, this Court resolved to revive the case against Anastacia Diaz; to refer the same to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan for investigation, report and recommendation; and, to release her retirement benefits, but retain the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) pending resolution of the case.[14]
At the investigation conducted by Palawan RTC Executive Judge Panfilo Salva, the complaining witnesses Anita Taguno, Yolly Capucao and Marina Beira declared that they were no longer interested in pursuing their complaints because the sums of money that they gave to respondent had already been allegedly given to their lawyers.[15]
Respondent for her part, while denying that she demanded money from the complainants, admitted having received separate sums of money from all the complainants, but for the purpose of delivering the same to other persons for whom the amounts were allegedly intended.
Thus, respondent testified:
Respondent categorically admitted having received money from Anita Taguno:
ATTY. CRUZAT Do you know a person certain person by the name of Yolly Capocao? (sic) MRS. DIAZ Yes, Your honor. xxx.
ATTY. CRUZAT MRS. DIAZ That is not true, your Honor. ATTY. CRUZAT MRS. DIAZ Yes, your Honor, she gave me the sum of five Hundred pesos it was given to Mr. Edora, her lawyer. ATTY. CRUZAT MRS. DIAZ Yes, your Honor. ATTY. CRUZAT
And you have turned it over to Mr. Edora as Requested by Mrs. Capocao? (sic) MRS. DIAZ Yes, your Honor. ATTY. CRUZAT This Mrs. Beira, do you know her? MRS. DIAZ Yes, your Honor. ATTY. CRUZAT Do you know if she has any case then pending before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court ofAborlan? MRS. DIAZ Before her son has a case in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, your Honor. xxx.
ATTY. CRUZAT And do you know the reason why Mrs. Beira would file a case against you? MRS. DIAZ I do not know, your Honor. ATTY. CRUZAT Do you know a certain Mayor, Mayor Rafael Ortega, Sr.? MRS. DIAZ Yes, your Honor, he is the Mayor of Aborlan,Palawan ATTY. CRUZAT And do you know a certain Edora?
MRS. DIAZ Yes, your Honor. ATTY. CRUZAT And by the way, do you have any knowledge of the Relation between Mayor Ortega and Edora? MRS. DIAZ What I know is they are not in good terms because of politics, your Honor. ATTY. CRUZAT And you are suspecting that Mayor Ortega has something to do with charges against you by these people? MRS. DIAZ Yes, your Honor.
ATTY. CRUZAT Why do you have a suspect that he has a hand? MRS. DIAZ ATTY. CRUZAT Was there any proof that you are demanding money from this people? MRS. DIAZ No your Honor. ATY. CRUZAT After they tendered or delivered to you the sum of money the instruction was to give it to their lawyer? MRS. DIAZ
Yes, your Honor. ATTY. CRUZAT And do you have to give to be the person to give the money to their lawyer? (sic) MRS. DIAZ Because sometimes if they will not meet Mr. Edora his instruction was to give it to me. ATTY CRUZAT So this people who delivered to you some amount indeed was instructed by Mr. Edora to give the amount to you so that you will be the one to give it to Mr. Edora? MRS. DIAZ Yes, sir, but it is not often. It is seldom, your Honor.
Despite the dismissal of the criminal charges due to lack of interest of the private complainant, Executive Judge Panfilo Salva, in his Investigation Report of December 10, 1997, found respondent guilty of gross misconduct for receiving money from litigants. He stated therein:
INVESTIGATING JUDGE (to witness) MRS DIAZ She just requested me because she is in a hurry to go home because she is going to Tigman, your Honor. INVESTIGATING JUDGE
Where is the residence of Edora? MRS. DIAZ
At Poblacion, Aborlan, Your Honor. INVESTIGATING JUDGE What is the first name of Edora? MRS. DIAZ Eduardo your Honor. INVESTIGATING JUDGE Is this Eduardo Edora a lawyer? MRS. DIAZ No, he is not a lawyer. He is appearing in Municipal Trial Courts, your Honor. INVESTIGATING JUDGE
And you gave the amount to Mr. Edora? MRS. DIAZ Yes, sir. INVESTIGATING JUDGE And what did you tell Mr. Edora? MRS. DIAZ I just told him that the money came from Mrs. Taguno, you Honor. INVESTIGATING JUDGE And what did he answer? MRS. DIAZ
He just thank me, your Honor. INVESTIGATING JUDGE Did Mr. Edora sign a receipt that you gave the amount to him? MRS. DIAZ
None, sir.[17]
xxx It is not incumbent upon her to receive the monies. She should have refused to accept the same even if for delivery to Mr. Edora. By accepting the monies for delivery to Mr. Edora, she acted as Mr. Edora's agent, a circumstance that would confirm the suspicion that respondent Anastacia Diaz takes special interests in cases pending before the MCTC of Aborlan. This should not be the behaviour of a court employee. A court employee should at all times detach himself or herself from taking special interests in cases pending before the court. By taking special interests in such cases, the court employee concerned commits an act of misconduct which is an administrative offense punishable under the civil service law. xxx[18]On February 16, 1998, this Court issued a resolution referring this case to the OCAD for evaluation, report and recommendation.
On May 8, 1998, the OCAD submitted its Report with the following recommendations: 1) that respondent Anastacio Diaz be found guilty of Grave Misconduct; 2) that a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,00.00) be imposed upon respondent to be deducted from the Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) already withheld from her retirement benefits; and, 3) that the remaining Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) be released to her subject to the availability of funds and the usual clearance requirements.
We adopt the recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator.
There is no doubt that respondent actually received sums of money from the above-named complainants. As noted by the OCAD, respondent's claim that the amount received were intended for a lawyer does not inspire belief, for the litigants could have handed them directly to the lawyer concerned and not through an employee of the court. The fact that respondent received money from litigants is enough basis for sanctioning her for grave misconduct.
The fact that the criminal case against respondent was dismissed is of no moment. The dismissal of the criminal case against respondent does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative case arising from the same set of facts, since the quantum of evidence that is required in the latter is only substantial evidence, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt that is required in criminal cases.
That respondent has retired from the service is of no consequence either, since the jurisdiction of the court at the time of the filing of the complaint is not lost by the mere fact that respondent public official had ceased to be in office during the pendency of the case.[19]
Finally, this Court had consistently held that the conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them be free from suspicion that may taint the judiciary.[20]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court finds respondent Anastacia Diaz guilty of Grave Misconduct, and hereby imposes on said respondent a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), said amount to be deducted from the Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) withheld from her retirement benefits. The amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) constituting the remainder of said benefits is hereby ordered released in respondent's favor.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Melo, and Pardo, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 1.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Id., at 10-11
[4] Records, pp. 102-108
[5] Id., at 100-101
[6] Id., at 99
[7] Rollo, p. 8.
[8] Id., at 24.
[9] Id., at 48.
[10] Id., at 47.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Id., at 52.
[13] Id., at 55.
[14] Rollo, p. 63.
[15] TSN, June 17, 1997, pp. 3-5.
[16] TSN, September 29, 1997, pp. 6-13.
[17] TSN, September 29, 1997, pp. 16-17.
[18] At p. 4 thereof.
[19] Atty. Romeo S. Perez vs. Judge Carlos Abiera, 64 SRCA 302 (1975).
[20] Gano vs. Leonen, 232 SCRA 98 (1994).