EN BANC
[ A.M. NO. 2006-02-SC, October 15, 2007 ]ALEXANDER D.J. LORENZO v. ORLANDO +
ALEXANDER D.J. LORENZO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ORLANDO AND DOLORES LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
ALEXANDER D.J. LORENZO v. ORLANDO +
ALEXANDER D.J. LORENZO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ORLANDO AND DOLORES LOPEZ, RESPONDENTS.
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
Before this Court is a complaint for misconduct filed by Alexander D.J. Lorenzo against two employees of this Court, spouses Orlando and Dolores Lopez[1] (the Lopezes). Lorenzo accuses the Lopezes of harassing, threatening, and
assaulting him and several members of his family.
The complaint pertains to a dispute among neighbors. Lorenzo and the Lopezes were residents of Juana 3 Subdivision, Barangay San Francisco, Biñan, Laguna. Complainant Lorenzo and his family lived at the house of his father-in-law, Leonardo Comia, in said subdivision (Lot 16). The Lopezes' house (Lot 15) is located behind Comia's.
Beside the Comia lot is an alley (Lot 14) provided by developer La Paz Housing and Development Corporation to serve as right of way to the occupants of Lot 15 and Lot 13. The said alley is the only means for ingress and egress to the main road for the occupants of Lots 15 and 13.[2]
The aforementioned alley has been the source of tension between the neighbors. The Lopezes claim that Comia constructed a side gate to the alley, which impedes the free use thereof. On the other hand, Lorenzo claims that the Lopezes are the ones prohibiting him and his family from using the alleyway. He also alleges that, whenever they pass thru the alleyway, the Lopezes threaten to haul them to jail because "malakas daw sila sa Supreme Court."
The conflict finally came to a head on July 30, 2005.
Orlando Lopez alleges that at about 7:30 that morning, he was about to exit the gate of the alley when he saw Comia standing near the gate. Comia blocked Orlando's way, and asked who had locked the gate. Orlando answered that he did. Comia then answered back, "Ah! Ganon!" then pushed Orlando on the chest. Comia then entered the gate and pulled a .22 caliber gun from his back pocket and poked Orlando on the chest. Comia pulled the trigger but missed Orlando. Then, complainant Lorenzo came out and allegedly boxed Orlando on the right eye. To prevent the former from mauling him, Orlando embraced Lorenzo. Orlando's wife, Dolores, and his son came out of their house to pacify them. Comia cocked his gun again and poked Orlando on the chest. Fortunately, one of their other neighbors came out and parried Comia's hand causing him to fire the gun upward. Thereafter, the Lopezes rushed to the Biñan Police Station to report the incident.[3]
As a result of their continuing dispute, the Lopezes have filed several cases against Comia, to wit:
On the other hand, Lorenzo disputes Orlando's version of the July 30, 2005 incident. He alleges that at the time of the incident, he heard what seemed to be an argument outside their house. He looked out and saw the Lopezes shouting invectives at his father-in-law. When he saw Orlando about to punch his mother-in-law, Lucita Comia, he rushed out to stop Orlando. However, Orlando instead punched him on the left eye while Dolores pulled his hair.[5] Lorenzo then reported the incident to the Barangay. The incident was called for Barangay conciliation but the Lopezes allegedly failed to appear at the scheduled proceedings.[6]
On August 15, 2005, Lorenzo filed a letter-complaint against the Lopezes addressed to then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.,[7] requesting Court action against the Lopezes for the July 30, 2005 incident.
Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer submitted the report and recommendation of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) in a Memorandum to then Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, dated March 29, 2006. The pertinent portions of the report read:
The case was assigned to retired Court of Appeals Justice Narciso T. Atienza for investigation. Justice Atienza, likewise, recommended the dismissal of the case for insufficiency of evidence. The Investigating Justice found, thus:
Both the OAS and Justice Atienza found the claims of complainant unfounded based on the evidence and testimonies on record. Their findings are entitled to full credence, especially those of Justice Atienza who had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.
Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.[10]
We hold that the Lopezes are not guilty of misconduct. As found by the OAS and the Investigating Justice, complainant has failed to sufficiently prove the veracity of his claims. In fact, based on the evidence on record, it is the respondents that seem to have been the recipients of complainant's father-in-law's wrath. Complainant does not even allege that the Lopezes provoked Comia into a fight. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that Comia was already carrying a gun while standing near the gate. It was he who blocked Orlando as the latter was passing through and he who initiated the confrontation.
That the Lopezes have filed the abovementioned cases in court indicates that they have been wronged in some way. Be that as it may, the wrong committed against all the parties to the incident and who may be liable therefor will be determined at the proper time in the cases already pending before the trial court. There lies the proper forum to ventilate complainant's claims against the Lopezes.
This Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees of the Judiciary. But neither will we hesitate to shield the same employees from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.[11]
The Lopezes deny the allegation that they used the name of this Court to threaten their neighbors. There is no evidence on record to hold otherwise.
However, we remind the Lopezes that their employment in this Court is not a status symbol or a badge to be brandished around for all to see, but a sacred duty and, as ordained by the Constitution, a public trust. They should be more circumspect in how they conduct themselves in and outside the office. After all, they do not stop becoming judiciary employees once they step outside the gates of the Supreme Court.
On a final note, the Lopezes seem to be under the impression that this Court should not take cognizance of this administrative complaint because the allegations therein are not work-related.[12]
We take this occasion to reiterate that judiciary personnel are held to the highest standards of decorum and propriety. The conduct required of court personnel, from the highest magistrate to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach.[13] Any transgression or deviation from the established norm of conduct, work-related or not, amounts to misconduct.[14] Employees of the judiciary should be living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of their official duties, but also in their personal and private dealings with other people, so as to preserve at all times the good name and standing of courts in the community.[15] Any act that falls short of the exacting standards for public office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the judiciary, shall not be countenanced.[16]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant administrative complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, Velasco, Jr., and Reyes, JJ., concur.
[1] Computer Operator II, Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, and SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Checks Disbursement Division, Fiscal Management and Budget Office, respectively.
[2] Memorandum of Atty. Eden T. Candelaria re A.M. No. 2006-02-SC, p. 1.
[3] Affidavit of Orlando Lopez, p. 1-2.
[4] Investigation Report, p. 9.
[5] Affidavit of Alexader D.J. Lopez, p. 2.
[6] Id. at 3.
[7] Now a member of this Court.
[8] Memorandum of Atty. Candelaria, pp. 5-6.
[9] Investigation Report, pp. 10-11.
[10] Osop v. Fontanilla, 417 Phil. 724, 728 (2001), citing Surigao del Norte Electric Cooperative vs. NLRC, 309 SCRA 233 (1999).
[11] Francisco v. Leyva, 364 Phil. 1, 4 (1999).
[12] Comment of spouses Orlando and Dolores Lopez, September 14, 2005, p. 1.
[13] Disapproved Appointment of Maricel A. Cubijano, Court Stenographer III, RTC-Branch 28, Lianga, Surigao Del Sur, A.M. No. 04-10-637-RTC, August 18, 2005, 467 SCRA 252, 256.
[14] Re: Disciplinary Action against Antonio Lamano, Jr., of the Judgment Division, Supreme Court, 377 Phil. 364, 367 (1999).
[15] Pablejan v. Calleja, A.M. No. P-06-2102, January 24, 2006, 479 SCRA 562, 570 citing Santelices v. Samar, 373 SCRA 78 (2002).
[16] Re: Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) of Antonio Macalintal, Process Server, Office of the Clerk of Court, 382 Phil. 314, 317 (2000).
The complaint pertains to a dispute among neighbors. Lorenzo and the Lopezes were residents of Juana 3 Subdivision, Barangay San Francisco, Biñan, Laguna. Complainant Lorenzo and his family lived at the house of his father-in-law, Leonardo Comia, in said subdivision (Lot 16). The Lopezes' house (Lot 15) is located behind Comia's.
Beside the Comia lot is an alley (Lot 14) provided by developer La Paz Housing and Development Corporation to serve as right of way to the occupants of Lot 15 and Lot 13. The said alley is the only means for ingress and egress to the main road for the occupants of Lots 15 and 13.[2]
The aforementioned alley has been the source of tension between the neighbors. The Lopezes claim that Comia constructed a side gate to the alley, which impedes the free use thereof. On the other hand, Lorenzo claims that the Lopezes are the ones prohibiting him and his family from using the alleyway. He also alleges that, whenever they pass thru the alleyway, the Lopezes threaten to haul them to jail because "malakas daw sila sa Supreme Court."
The conflict finally came to a head on July 30, 2005.
Orlando Lopez alleges that at about 7:30 that morning, he was about to exit the gate of the alley when he saw Comia standing near the gate. Comia blocked Orlando's way, and asked who had locked the gate. Orlando answered that he did. Comia then answered back, "Ah! Ganon!" then pushed Orlando on the chest. Comia then entered the gate and pulled a .22 caliber gun from his back pocket and poked Orlando on the chest. Comia pulled the trigger but missed Orlando. Then, complainant Lorenzo came out and allegedly boxed Orlando on the right eye. To prevent the former from mauling him, Orlando embraced Lorenzo. Orlando's wife, Dolores, and his son came out of their house to pacify them. Comia cocked his gun again and poked Orlando on the chest. Fortunately, one of their other neighbors came out and parried Comia's hand causing him to fire the gun upward. Thereafter, the Lopezes rushed to the Biñan Police Station to report the incident.[3]
As a result of their continuing dispute, the Lopezes have filed several cases against Comia, to wit:
These cases are pending before the Municipal Trial Court of Biñan.
On the other hand, Lorenzo disputes Orlando's version of the July 30, 2005 incident. He alleges that at the time of the incident, he heard what seemed to be an argument outside their house. He looked out and saw the Lopezes shouting invectives at his father-in-law. When he saw Orlando about to punch his mother-in-law, Lucita Comia, he rushed out to stop Orlando. However, Orlando instead punched him on the left eye while Dolores pulled his hair.[5] Lorenzo then reported the incident to the Barangay. The incident was called for Barangay conciliation but the Lopezes allegedly failed to appear at the scheduled proceedings.[6]
On August 15, 2005, Lorenzo filed a letter-complaint against the Lopezes addressed to then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.,[7] requesting Court action against the Lopezes for the July 30, 2005 incident.
Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer submitted the report and recommendation of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) in a Memorandum to then Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, dated March 29, 2006. The pertinent portions of the report read:
From the foregoing facts and after evaluating their respective claims, it appears that the allegations of complainant Lorenzo will not hold water, much less for this Office (sic) to find merits (sic) on the same for almost set of facts are involved in the criminal complaint for Attempted Homicide earlier filed by respondent-spouses Lopez against Mr. Comia before the Municipal Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna. Nonetheless, this Office is convinced that the filing of the instant administrative complaint against the respondents is a retaliation of (sic) the criminal complaints for grave threats, unjust vexation, and attempted homicide that were earlier filed by respondent-spouses Lopez against complainant's father-in-law.The Memorandum was noted by this Court in a Resolution dated April 18, 2006 and referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for further investigation.
Anent the charges for harassment, threat and assault, all of which are classified as grave misconduct…herein complainant failed to substantiate the same. Records are bereft of evidence to support the charges that respondent-spouses did harass or in any way threaten complainant or any of his family members (sic). Except for the medical certificate and official receipts issued by the Biñan Doctors' Hospital, no other pieces of evidence were offered by complainant to corroborate his claim that Mr. Lopez delivered the blow and caused his injuries. x x x.
If complainant believes that damage and injustice have been done against him or his family by respondents, he has all the available resources favorable to him to seek redress before the court and prove his allegations thereto (sic).[8]
The case was assigned to retired Court of Appeals Justice Narciso T. Atienza for investigation. Justice Atienza, likewise, recommended the dismissal of the case for insufficiency of evidence. The Investigating Justice found, thus:
The allegation of Lorenzo that he was punched by Orlando Lopez when he tried to prevent the latter from boxing his mother-in-law deserves scant consideration. Respondents have presented sufficient evidence showing that at the time that complainant was allegedly punched by Orlando, the latter was being held at bay because Comia was poking his gun at him and he was only able to run for his life after [their neighbor] Tom Evidente held the hand of Comia that was holding the gun and raised it upwards. x x x.The common recommendation of the OAS and the Investigating Justice to dismiss the instant case is well-taken; thus, we adopt the same.
Lorenzo also implicated Dolores Lopez to the alleged criminal act of Orlando by stating in his complaint that: "Si Dolores Lopez po ay agad tumulong na ako'y saktan sa pamagitan ng pagsabunot sa aking buhok." This allegation of Lorenzo was even contradicted by his witness Ryan Reanzares when he stated in his affidavit that: "Habang nangyayari iyong mga ginagawa ni Lopez kay Alex ng makita ko ang asawa ni Lopez sa may di kalayuan na patawa-tawa sa pangyayari.["] If Dolores really grabbed the hair of complainant, Reanzares could have seen it.
The complaint against respondents is clearly fabricated. It was filed as a (sic) leverage to help Comia get off the hook. Lorenzo has a very strong motive for falsely charge the respondents because Comia who is his father-in-law and in whose house his wife, his child and he were then staying, was facing six (6) criminal complaints filed by the respondents in the Biñan Municipal Trial Court. On the other hand, there is nothing on record that would show that [respondents' witnesses] Batty and Bangibag have any motive to testify falsely against Lorenzo especially Batty who is also a neighbor.
The cross-examination of counsel for the complainant did not destroy the credibility of Batty and Bangibag. Their testimonies are straight forward (sic) and unwavering. Records are bereft of evidence which would show any ill-motive on the part of the witnesses for respondents to testify against complainant. Their testimonies therefore are entitled to full faith and credit (sic).
On the otherhand (sic), complainant did not present Comia to corroborate his testimony. Comia's testimony could have lent credence to the version of the complainant considering that his name was prominently mentioned, not only by the complainant, but also by respondents and their witnesses.[9]
Both the OAS and Justice Atienza found the claims of complainant unfounded based on the evidence and testimonies on record. Their findings are entitled to full credence, especially those of Justice Atienza who had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.
Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.[10]
We hold that the Lopezes are not guilty of misconduct. As found by the OAS and the Investigating Justice, complainant has failed to sufficiently prove the veracity of his claims. In fact, based on the evidence on record, it is the respondents that seem to have been the recipients of complainant's father-in-law's wrath. Complainant does not even allege that the Lopezes provoked Comia into a fight. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that Comia was already carrying a gun while standing near the gate. It was he who blocked Orlando as the latter was passing through and he who initiated the confrontation.
That the Lopezes have filed the abovementioned cases in court indicates that they have been wronged in some way. Be that as it may, the wrong committed against all the parties to the incident and who may be liable therefor will be determined at the proper time in the cases already pending before the trial court. There lies the proper forum to ventilate complainant's claims against the Lopezes.
This Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees of the Judiciary. But neither will we hesitate to shield the same employees from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.[11]
The Lopezes deny the allegation that they used the name of this Court to threaten their neighbors. There is no evidence on record to hold otherwise.
However, we remind the Lopezes that their employment in this Court is not a status symbol or a badge to be brandished around for all to see, but a sacred duty and, as ordained by the Constitution, a public trust. They should be more circumspect in how they conduct themselves in and outside the office. After all, they do not stop becoming judiciary employees once they step outside the gates of the Supreme Court.
On a final note, the Lopezes seem to be under the impression that this Court should not take cognizance of this administrative complaint because the allegations therein are not work-related.[12]
We take this occasion to reiterate that judiciary personnel are held to the highest standards of decorum and propriety. The conduct required of court personnel, from the highest magistrate to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach.[13] Any transgression or deviation from the established norm of conduct, work-related or not, amounts to misconduct.[14] Employees of the judiciary should be living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of their official duties, but also in their personal and private dealings with other people, so as to preserve at all times the good name and standing of courts in the community.[15] Any act that falls short of the exacting standards for public office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the judiciary, shall not be countenanced.[16]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant administrative complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, Velasco, Jr., and Reyes, JJ., concur.
[1] Computer Operator II, Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, and SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Checks Disbursement Division, Fiscal Management and Budget Office, respectively.
[2] Memorandum of Atty. Eden T. Candelaria re A.M. No. 2006-02-SC, p. 1.
[3] Affidavit of Orlando Lopez, p. 1-2.
[4] Investigation Report, p. 9.
[5] Affidavit of Alexader D.J. Lopez, p. 2.
[6] Id. at 3.
[7] Now a member of this Court.
[8] Memorandum of Atty. Candelaria, pp. 5-6.
[9] Investigation Report, pp. 10-11.
[10] Osop v. Fontanilla, 417 Phil. 724, 728 (2001), citing Surigao del Norte Electric Cooperative vs. NLRC, 309 SCRA 233 (1999).
[11] Francisco v. Leyva, 364 Phil. 1, 4 (1999).
[12] Comment of spouses Orlando and Dolores Lopez, September 14, 2005, p. 1.
[13] Disapproved Appointment of Maricel A. Cubijano, Court Stenographer III, RTC-Branch 28, Lianga, Surigao Del Sur, A.M. No. 04-10-637-RTC, August 18, 2005, 467 SCRA 252, 256.
[14] Re: Disciplinary Action against Antonio Lamano, Jr., of the Judgment Division, Supreme Court, 377 Phil. 364, 367 (1999).
[15] Pablejan v. Calleja, A.M. No. P-06-2102, January 24, 2006, 479 SCRA 562, 570 citing Santelices v. Samar, 373 SCRA 78 (2002).
[16] Re: Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) of Antonio Macalintal, Process Server, Office of the Clerk of Court, 382 Phil. 314, 317 (2000).