Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
A.M. No. P-06-2132 August 25, 2010
PRESENTATION V. ANOTA, Complainant,
vs.
AGERICO P. BALLES, CLERK OF COURT IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MTCC, TACLOBAN CITY, LEYTE, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
BRION, J.:
This administrative matter arose from a letter complaint1 of Presentation V. Anota, dated June 23, 2004, addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
In her letter, Mrs. Anota stated that her husband, Felicisimo G. Anota, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC)-Branch I Clerk of Court, Tacloban City, died without enjoying his retirement benefits because Atty. Agerico P. Balles, Clerk of Court IV of the Tacloban City MTCC, unjustly refused to issue the clearance necessary for the release of her husband’s retirement benefits. She alleged that her husband was forced to retire from the government at 63 years of age because of kidney problems traceable to diabetes; that he had to undergo amputation and had dialysis twice a week for 19 months, before he died on June 21, 2004; and that he filed all the necessary documents for his retirement, and the only missing document was the clearance from Atty. Balles. Atty. Balles refused to issue the clearance despite his knowledge that Mr. Anota had been cleared of money and property accountability and had no administrative case pending against him.
In his comment2 to the 1st Endorsement of Mrs. Anota’s complaint, Atty. Balles asserted that he could not issue the clearance because Presiding Judge Marino Buban believed that Mr. Anota still had to answer for some missing court records, among others.
We referred the matter to the Tacloban City Regional Trial Court executive judge for investigation, report and recommendation, upon the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).3 The investigating judge conducted several hearings, and based on his conclusion, the OCA, in its Memorandum,4 ruled that Atty. Balles’ acts amounted to oppression. There was no missing court record in Tacloban City MTCC-Branch 1 according to the Court Management Office-OCA’s judicial audits in June 2000 and August 2003, and the incumbent MTCC Clerk of Court testified that Mr. Anota had fully accounted for all the money and property under his custody. Thus, the OCA found Atty. Balles’ refusal to issue the clearance grossly unjust because Mr. Anota could have used his retirement benefits for his medicine and hospital expenses during his confinement.
We concur with the OCA’s findings, and would have fully concurred with its recommended sanctions against Atty. Balles, except that:
First, on March 28, 2006, Atty. Balles submitted to us a certification that Felicisimo Anota had been cleared of money and property accountabilities;5 and
Second, in 2009, we dismissed Atty. Balles from the service in A.M. No. P-05-2065, entitled "Report on the Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts of Mr. Agerico P. Balles, MTCC-OCC, Tacloban City."6 Our Decision in this administrative matter partly reads:
Hence, for the delay in the remittance of cash collections in violation of Supreme Court Circulars No. 5-93 and No. 13-92 and for his failure to keep proper records of all collections and remittances, Balles is found guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty punishable, even for the first offense, by dismissal.
WHEREFORE, Agerico P. Balles is hereby found GUILTY of gross neglect of duty and is ordered DISMISSED from the service. Except for leave credits already earned, his retirement benefits are FORFEITED, with prejudice to reemployment in any government agency, including government-owned and controlled corporations. The Civil Service Commission is ordered to cancel his civil service eligibility, if any, in accordance with Section 9, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292.7
Atty. Balles’ dismissal from the service has now been implemented, thus rendering the adjudication of the present administrative matter an exercise in futility; no administrative penalty can be imposed after his dismissal from the service, the forfeiture of all his employment benefits except for accrued leave credits, and his disqualification from future employment with any government agency. We thus have no option left but to dismiss the present administrative matter for being moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, we hereby ORDER the dismissal of the present administrative matter for being moot and academic.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice |
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Associate Justice
Footnotes
1 Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 4-5.
2 Id. at 69-71.
3 January 12, 2005 Report to this Court; id. at 102-104.
4 Dated December 12, 2005; id. at 309-312.
5 Id. at 330.
6 April 2, 2009, 583 SCRA 50.
7 Id. at 62.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
