Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
A.M. No. P-08-2466 August 13, 2008
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2477-P)
BEN G. SON, complainant,
vs.
CONCEPCION B. SALVADOR, Court Interpreter, and JOSE V. NALA, JR., Clerk II, Regional Trial Court, Branch 146, Makati City, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
AZCUNA, J.:
On March 20, 2006, complainant filed a Sinumpaang Salaysay before the Office of the Ombudsman charging respondents with violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC). Submitted to support the complaint was a joint sworn statement of Cesar B. Miranda and Evangeline G. Saldo. Citing this Court’s ruling in Judge Caoibes, Jr. v. Hon. Ombudsman,1 however, the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer, in an Order dated April 6, 2006, referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action.
Complainant alleges that sometime in January 2006 at around 10:00 A.M., while accompanying Atty. Ana Luz Cristal (in whose law office he works as a messenger) to a hearing at the Makati Hall of Justice, he saw Nerrie Torrente-Ungsod, the sister of Rolando Torrente against whom he had filed a case for Frustrated Murder, Frustrated Homicide and Attempted Homicide (docketed as I.S. No. 05-I-11140-42), enter the office of respondent Salvador. A month after, he was sent by Atty. Cristal to the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 141 (Br. 141), to see if a hearing of the latter’s case had already started. There he again saw respondent Salvador together with respondent Nala inside the courtroom. Complainant claims that respondent Salvador, who is a close friend of the Torrente family, is fixing (nag-aayos/nagkakalkal) cases against him, using her position and influence to gain access to the records of his cases; and that both respondents are working in favor of the interest of the Torrentes contrary to the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. He also adds that respondent Salvador is engaged in the business of cellular phone "load" (commonly known as "e-load") and lending money to court employees.
Aside from agreeing with the above allegations, affiants Miranda and Saldo, who are co-employees of complainant in the law office, aver that on September 23, 2005 they filed a Motion to Reduce Bail for the temporary liberty of complainant, who is accused of homicide in Criminal Case No. 89-964 pending before Br. 141. After filing the motion, they were told by the clerk in charge of criminal cases to stay while the order for the recall of the warrant of arrest was being prepared. While waiting, a man allegedly came inside the office and remarked as he handed to the clerk a folder: "Ate, ano nang nangyari sa kasong pina-follow up ko sa’yo…? May budget ito, akong bahala sa’yo." They were surprised with what they heard. When they asked his identity and the reason why they were following-up the same case, the man purportedly replied: "Dyan lang ako sa kabila. Inutos lang sa akin ni Ate Connie." They inquired who "Ate Connie" is but the man allegedly left in haste. Out of curiosity, they followed him and saw that he went inside the RTC, Br. 146. After they secured the Recall Order, they went to said court and asked for his name. It was disclosed by an employee that the person they were referring to was respondent Nala. Further, Miranda and Saldo assert that I.S. No. 05-I-11140-42 was filed on October 10, 2005 but it dragged on for five months because respondents exploited their positions as court employees.
In her Comment, respondent Salvador counters that the complaint is based on conjectures, presumptions and mere allegations and is not backed up by substantial evidence. She admits that Nerrie visited her office in January 2006 but only for the purpose of inquiring from her where they could secure the services of a lawyer who could prepare their counter-affidavit, as to which she advised her to proceed to the Public Attorneys Office. She also denies that she ever went together with respondent Nala to Br. 141. In any case, respondent Salvador contends that these incidents should not be considered as violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel because the court is a public office and court employees cannot prevent any person from entering it.
Respondent Salvador strongly denies the accusation that she is using her position as court interpreter and as an employee of the court to favor certain people by fixing/dealing and looking into the case records of Br. 141. She submitted the Pinagsanib na Salaysay of Henry R. Belen, Jocelyn B. Basbano, Alicia M. Rile, Arlyn M. Lasquite, Robert T. Bautista, Zenia A. Escabarte, Delfin T. Manga, Jr., and Rogelio M. Honrado and the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Zenaida A. Baloduya, all employees of Br. 141. In the joint sworn statement, the affiants deny the allegation that respondents are intruding into the case records of Br. 141, reasoning that this act is not authorized by the branch clerk of court pursuant to the order of their judge. They state that only those employees in charge of the criminal and civil cases are permitted to look into the court records. While the affiants recognize that anyone is free to verify the status of cases, as these are public records, they claim that respondents never fixed nor followed-up the case related to complainant. In her capacity as Clerk III and in-charge of criminal cases, affiant Baloduya moreover declares that since her assignment to the job, she has not permitted anyone, court employees or not, to examine the records of cases, conformably with the instruction of the branch clerk and the directive of the judge. She stresses that she will never allow this act for fear of being penalized.
Concerned that both parties would think that she is taking one side, respondent Salvador further asserted that she has avoided meeting or talking to complainant and Nerrie, either in the vicinity of the court or in their neighborhood, while their cases are pending. Knowing the increasing animosity between them, she claims that she deems it best to distance herself from them even at the cost of losing their friendship. Respondent Salvador, however, admits that it is difficult not to speak with them as they are her neighbors; hence, on several occasions she conversed with them albeit separately. She avers that they both sought her in her office but that she had always advised them that they are neighbors and, being so, they should exert all efforts to amicably settle their dispute. As respondent Salvador feels that both parties are seeking her out as their "go-between" or intermediary, she made it clear to them that she does not want to get involved with their squabbles. She found out though that complainant took it rather harshly as he took her silence and her act of distancing herself as ways of taking the side of Nerrie by purportedly having an active part in the resolution of the cases between the parties. Respondent Salvador states that although she has worked in the court for quite some time now the truth is that she does not understand the intricacies of legal proceedings, and, consequently, could not offer either party any legal assistance. Likewise, she does not know or understand their cases and she does not wield any influence over any court personnel in Makati.
As regards the allegation that she is into the "e-load" business, respondent Salvador clarifies that her small "e-load" store, which is managed by her relatives, is located in her residence and not in her office at Br. 141, and that the "e-load" sometimes being purchased on credit should not be considered as a money lending business.
For his part, respondent Nala avows that he was not in any way involved in complainant’s case pending before Br. 141. He contends that the narrations of Miranda and Saldo in their Sinumpaang Salaysay are patent falsehoods as he did not, nor did respondent Salvador, ever approach or attempt to bribe any court personnel. Respondent Nala argues that the allegations of complainant are malicious imputations and are bereft of any verifiable factual basis and should thus be dismissed.
In its Report on December 28, 2006, the OCA opined that the charges leveled by complainant are "serious" and that the allegations of Miranda and Saldo are "disturbing" as these suggest corruption among court personnel. Yet, due to the conflicting versions of the parties, the OCA recommended the referral of the case to an OCA consultant for investigation, report and recommendation.
Per Resolution dated February 5, 2007, this Court resolved to note the OCA Report. On March 13, 2007 the case was referred to Romulo S. Quimbo, as the Hearing Officer Designate.
On May 11, 2007, the Hearing Officer recommended the dismissal of the case for lack of merit but with a general admonition to all employees of the judiciary to avoid any act that may give rise to a suspicion that they are interested in any case pending in court.
The recommendation is granted.
A plain reading of complainant’s testimony during the hearing conducted on March 30, 2007 elicits no substantial evidence to support the charge of respondents’ alleged unethical maneuvers relative to the cases pending between complainant and the Torrentes. A portion of the transcript of the proceedings clearly shows this point:
Q Then you say that you saw him enter into the office of the respondents Salvador and Nala?
A Si Lando [referring to Rolando Torrente] hindi ko nakita kundi lang sila Nerrie at saka mga ilang anak habang kami nagkakaso ngayon sa kaso nilang pamamaril sa akin noong time na kasama ako ni Ma’am Cristal, nakita ko yung kapatid[,] si Nerrie.
Q Do you know the purpose of the visit of the Torrentes at Branch 146?
A Alam ko na na humihingi ng tulong sila kay Connie na tulungan sila sa mga problema nila.
Q How did you know that that was the purpose of their visit?
A Kasi sa mga hearings po namin, isang beses mismo ako, doon kay Fiscal Seña nandoon kami nakaupo sa labas, yung isang secretary po nila ni Fiscal Seña noong hindi pa dumarating itong mga Torrentes Family sa hearing…
Q What hearing is this?
A Demanda ko po ng….
Q Which body or tribunal?
A Fiscal lang.
Q What is the name of that Prosecutor?
A Fiscal Seña
Q When was this hearing before Prosecutor Seña?
A Last year. Hindi ko na matandaan sa tagal na ito eh.
Q Around when last year?
A September yan eh, hindi ko matandaan.
MR WAGAN:
Basta last year.
A Last year yun. Noong binaril ako nila eh[,] ng Torrente.
Q When were you supposedly shot by Torrente?
A Hindi ko na matandaan nasa ano ko yan eh.
Q Do you not remember what part of the year you were shot?
A Basta last year yun.
Q First quarter, 2nd quarter...?
A June kami binaril noon 2005[,] galing kami sa bakasyon from Samar[,] 2005 maari.
Q So in this case, you are the complainant?
A Opo.
Q Now you said that you went to the…. This case was prosecuted before Pros. Seña. When was the proceeding before Pros. Seña?
A July na siguro.
Q July of?
A 2005. Kasi hindi ko na ma-recall kasi sa tagal na noon.
MR WAGAN:
Hindi mo ma-recall. Dadalin yung ano, yung records nasa office.
A Attorney and masasabi ko lang diyan sa tagal na, hindi ko ma-recall ang time…
Q That is enough. What transpired in that supposed hearing before Pros. Seña?
A May tumawag sa telepono[,] sa secretary niya. Male-late pa raw and dating ng mga Torrente sa hearing. Ang narinig lang namin, ang kasama ko noon ay si Atty. Valencio, and narinig namin mismo[,] ako ang nakarinig sa secretary, "O sige ate sabihin ko na lang kay fiscal."
Q What did you hear exactly?
A Yun lang[.] "O sige ate sabihin ko kay Fiscal."
Q Do you have an elder sister?
A Meron.
Q What do you call her?
A Ate Rosa.
Q So do you know exactly who called that person over the cellphone that you heard?
A Hindi sinabi kung sinong ate.
Q So based on that call in July of 2006, you were able to conjecture that the purpose of Nerrie Torrente-Ungsod’s visit to Connie Salvador’s office [in] January of 2006 was to follow-up on that case?
A Yan ang pagkakaintindi ko kasi…
Q Without hearing the name of the person calling the secretary of Pros. Seña?
A Yan ang pagkakaintindi ko. Kasi maraming time na mismong ito si…
Q No further… That is the end of your answer for now. You say that "Connie Salvador ay may pinapaborang tao." Why do you say that?
A Kasi itong huling hearing din namin dito sa[,] kay Fiscal Riel. Huling hearing naming doon sa isang case din kay Fiscal Riel…
Q What case is this?
A Physical injury.
Q So this is a preliminary investigation?
A Opo.
Q Who are you in that case? How are you connected to that case?
A Kasama kami na ikinomplain.
Q Okay, you are the respondent?
A Opo.
Q What happened in that preliminary investigation before Pros. Riel?
A Iba yan kay Fiscal Riel. Tapos na rin yun kasi ako naisama doon sa…
Q When was this proceeding before Fiscal Riel?
A January na yon eh.
Q January of?
MR. WAGAN:
Basta last year.
A Basta maari noong last January or itong January na dumating.
ATTY. CRUZ:
Your Honor, I would like to make of record that so far the complainant has never been definite with any of the dates.
THE COURT:
The Court will rule.
Q What transpired during that supposed proceeding?
A Noong pagdating ni ano. Siya (pointing to Mr. Manny Wagan) mismo ang nagtanong sa secretary, nandoon ako nakaupo, kung pang-ilan tayo[,] ano? Siya mismo ang nagtanong sa secretary, si Manny Wagan. Tinatanong nya roon kung [pang-ilan] ang hearing naming.
Q And then what happened?
A Ako mismo ang nakarinig sa secretary, sinabi[,] "ah alam na namin ito tinawag na ni Ninang Connie itong kasong ito."
Q What was the name of the person who said that…?
MR. WAGAN:
Vivian?
A Vivian.
Q Do you have any…?
MR. WAGAN:
Dalawa sila doon eh, Vivian o si Gail.
Q Do you have any written testimony or declaration of that Vivian?
A Wala naman. Basta ang intindi ko lang yun salita na "ay alam na namin ito."
Q So what else?
A Saka napag-alaman ko po itong si Vivian [inaanak] ni Connie sa kasal. Basta kung alin diyan sa dalawa.
Q So just because a person knows about the case, you presumed that she is favoring a certain person? Did you not consider that she is also favoring you?
A Sana ganun.
Q So you have no actual direct proof other than these conjectures of yours that you are trying to piece together?
A (no answer from the complainant)
ATTY. CRUZ:
No further questions, Your Honor.
x x x x x x x x x
Q So you mean to tell us, Mr. Witness, that other than the fact that a certain Cesar Miranda and Evengeline Saldo allegedly saw Mr. Nala making a follow-up with Branch 141, you have no other direct evidence against Mr. Nala?
A Isang beses po noong pinatingnan ni Ma’am din, di ko na din matandaan yung hearing namin noon sa 141, umakyat din ako sa taas. Nakita ko si Connie at si ano na [nanggaling] din doon sa office. Noong time na iyon maghe-hearing kami…
Q Sino ang nakita niyo?
A Si Jojo at si Connie nanggaling doon sa upisina ng 141. At saka ilang beses kami ni Connie mismo nag-usap, mismo si Connie, kausap ko. Tuwing maghe-hearing kami sa 141, minsan nakikita ko si Connie na lumalabas sa Office ng Prosecutor Moreno na nangagaling si Ate Connie, ate nga ang tawag ko diyan sa kanya eh, na nanggaling siya sa Office ni Moreno. Hindi alam ni Ate Connie na nandoon ako minsan nakatayo. Tapos nabibigla siya pag bigla akong lalabas sa may poste, Pumapasok tuloy tuloy si [Ate] Connie tuloy sa loob ng office ng 141. Alam ni Ate Connie na nabibigla ako pirmi sa …
THE COURT:
So your case is pending before Branch 141?
A Opo.
Q Yung sinabi mong nakikita mo si Connie doon sa upisina ni Fiscal Moreno, saan yung upisina ni Fiscal Moreno?
A 2nd Floor.
Q Siya lang ba ang nag-uupisina doon o mayroon pang ibang Fiscal?
A Marami.
Q So paano niyo nalaman na si Fiscal Moreno ang kinakausap ni Connie?
A Nagsasama pa nga po sila, magkasabay na patungo sa upisina ng 141.
Q Magkasabay lang patungo.
A Nag-uusap sila habang naglalakad. (Emphasis ours)2
The above-quoted answers of complainant hardly make a case against respondents. The incidents mentioned by him to strengthen his claim are subject to varying interpretations as, undeniably, he was not within hearing distance to precisely comprehend what was being talked about by the parties involved. Indeed, it is very possible that respondents were innocently talking of a totally unrelated matter or that respondent Salvador might have been also looking after the interest of all parties, including complainant, who admitted that he had talked to her many times. The court finds no persuasive evidence pointing otherwise. Notably, complainant no longer attended the subsequent proceedings set on April 3 and 20, and May 4, 2007. Neither were his witnesses, Miranda and Saldo, present on all of the scheduled hearings to affirm the facts alleged in their Sinumpaang Salaysay.
Respondents cannot be faulted for asserting that complainant is merely relying on pure guesswork, on too many assumptions unconfirmed by evidence. The dismissal of this case is, therefore, proper since respondents enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties as well as the presumption of innocence. This is but consistent with Tam v. Regencia:3
Settled is the rule that in administrative proceedings the burden of proof that the respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant. In fact, if the complainant, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim, the respondent is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee or magistrate is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail.4
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against respondents Salvador and Nala is hereby DISMISSED for failure of complainant to substantiate the charges.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice |
Footnotes
1 413 Phil. 717 (2001).
2 TSN, March 30, 2007, pp. 11-20.
3 A.M. No. MTJ-05-1604, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 26.
4 Id. at 37-38.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
