Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
SECOND Division
| JUDGE ROWENA NIEVES A. TAN, Complainant, | A.M. No. P-11-2919 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2699-P) |
|
- versus - |
Present:
CARPIO, J, Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. |
|
ERNESTO C. QUITORIO, Legal Researcher, Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Borongan, Eeastern Samar, |
Promulgated: |
| Respondent. | May 31, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a complaint for Grave Misconduct filed by Judge Rowena Nieves A. Tan (Judge Tan) against respondent Ernesto Quitorio (Quitorio), then the Legal Researcher of Branch 2, Regional Trial Court, Borongan, Eastern Samar (RTC Branch 2), for drafting a resolution of a motion to dismiss in a case which was not assigned to him and for informing the favored movant of the submission of the draft to her, with instructions to follow it up with her.
Records show that on January 11, 2008, Judge Tan filed an unsworn letter-complaint[1] requesting for an investigation on Quitorio’s alleged misconduct. In the said letter, Judge Tan averred that: she was the Acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 2 from March to October 2007; at that time, there was a pending motion to dismiss filed by Angeles Gomez (Gomez), respondent in Civil Case No. 4052, which was an original case for recovery of ownership and annulment of title; on November 21, 2007, upon her return to her original court station in RTC, Branch 42, Balangiga, Eastern Samar, she received a text message from Corazon Dadulla (Dadulla), Gomez’s errand girl, which read “Good am! Maam c cora ito. Pwede kmada ha balangiga importante la kan mana angie papakiana. Tanx a lnt.” (“Good am! Maam this is Cora. May I go to Balangiga? Mana Angie has something important to ask you. Thanks a lot”); she knew Dadulla to have a pending case in RTC Branch 2 for Large Scale Illegal Recruitment but she did not know where and how Dadulla got her mobile phone number; sensing that Dadulla wanted to see her about Gomez’s case, she informed her that she had left RTC Branch 2 and had nothing more to do with the cases there; despite that, Dadulla, as ordered by Gomez, still came to see her on November 27, 2007, regarding the draft resolution of Quitorio granting Gomez’s motion to dismiss; Civil Case No. 4052 was never assigned to Quitorio, to whom she only assigned appealed cases; and she had not even read the said draft which she left in RTC Branch 2.
Judge Tan added that she had been previously warned about Quitorio’s reputation in RTC Branch 2, so she made it a policy to make the Clerk of Court, Atty. Crisolito Tavera (Atty. Tavera), privy to the cases assigned to Quitorio; the said motion to dismiss had yet to be scheduled for hearing at the time Quitorio drafted the resolution; and on December 3, 2007, she confronted Quitorio in the presence of Executive Judge Elvie P. Lim (Executive Judge) and the RTC Branch 2 staff, and Quitorio insisted that she assigned the case to him for resolution, and he admitted drafting the resolution and informing Gomez that he already submitted it to her.
x x x.
The charge of Grave Misconduct in this case covers two acts of Quitorio, namely, (1) preparing a draft resolution in a pending case which was not assigned to him, and (2) informing the respondent in said case about the draft resolution and its submission to Judge Tan, with the further advice to follow it up with her.
Misconduct has been defined as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer." The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules, all of which must be established by substantial evidence, and must necessarily be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.[19]
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds itself hardly convinced that Quitorio prepared the draft resolution of the motion knowing that the case was not assigned to him. Although both Judge Tan and Atty. Tavera insist that only special proceedings and appealed cases were assigned to Quitorio, the evidence, nonetheless, is nebulous. The affidavits of Atty. Tavera do not categorically state that Civil Case No. 4052 was not assigned to Quitorio. Neither was there a detailed list of cases assigned to him. The affidavits of Atty. Tavera only stated that in accordance with the verbal orders of Judge Tan, he assigned to Quitorio several special proceeding cases and appealed cases from the MTC. Absent any evidence of corruption, this Court is inclined to believe that the case in question was inadvertently assigned to Quitorio, and that he believed in good faith that it was indeed assigned to him for research and drafting. Under the circumstances, this particular act of Quitorio cannot be considered a misconduct, either grave or simple, as it is not violative of any established and definite rule of action.
On the other hand, Quitorio’s admission that he informed Dadulla about the submission of his draft resolution with advice to follow it up with Judge Tan in her sala is violative of the confidentiality required of court personnel. Section 1, Canon II of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for Court Personnel,[20] provides:
CANON II
CONFIDENTIALITY
SECTION 1. Court personnel shall not disclose to any unauthorized person any confidential information acquired by them while employed in the judiciary, whether such information came from authorized or unauthorized sources.
Confidential information means information not yet made a matter of public record relating to pending cases, as well as information not yet made public concerning the work of any justice or judge relating to pending cases, including notes, drafts, research papers, internal dicussions, internal memoranda, records of internal deliberations and similar papers.
The notes, drafts, research papers, internal discussions, internal memoranda, records of internal deliberations and similar papers that a justice or judge uses in preparing a decision, resolution or orders shall remain confidential even after the decision, resolution or order is made public.
It is clear that a court personnel is prohibited from disclosing confidential information to any unauthorized person. Confidential information is any information not yet made a matter of public record relating to pending cases, as well as information not yet made public concerning the work of any judge relating to pending cases, including drafts.
It is of no moment that Quitorio merely disclosed that a draft resolution had been prepared and submitted, but did not specify the contents thereof.
Furthermore, it was highly improper for Quitorio to advise Dadulla to personally follow up the draft resolution with Judge Tan at her sala in Balangiga. Judge Tan could not have taken any action on the case because she was no longer the Acting Presiding Judge at the time.
The conduct of court personnel must not only be, but must also be perceived to be, free from any whiff of impropriety, both with respect to their duties in the judiciary and to their behavior outside the court. Informing a party in a case about the submission of a draft resolution and advising said party to directly communicate with a judge regarding the same constitutes impropriety and puts into question the integrity of the court.
A person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the additional elements to qualify the misconduct as grave. Grave misconduct necessarily includes the lesser offense of simple misconduct. Thus, one can be held liable for simple misconduct if any of the elements to make the misconduct grave is not established by substantial evidence. In such case, there is no violation of a person’s constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him.[21]
In the case at bench, there is no allegation or evidence presented to show that Quitorio prepared the draft resolution and informed Dadulla of the same for some benefit for himself or for another person. Thus, the element of corruption for grave misconduct is absent. Corruption, as stated earlier, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.[22] Quitorio, therefore, may only be held liable for simple misconduct and not grave misconduct.
Under Rule IV, Section 52(B)(2)[23] of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[24] simple misconduct is a less grave offense punishable with suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense. In Donton v. Loria,[25] where the respondent was found guilty of simple misconduct as a second offense, the penalty of suspension for six months without pay was imposed instead of dismissal, taking into account humanitarian reasons, length of service, and good faith. Quitorio pleads the same reasons.
In view of Quitorio’s retirement, however, the penalty of suspension can no longer be imposed. Nonetheless, his resignation does not render the complaint against him moot, as resignation is not and should not be a convenient way or strategy to evade administrative liability when a court employee is facing administrative sanction.[26] In Leyrit v. Solas,[27] where the penalty of suspension for simple misconduct was no longer feasible due to therein respondent’s compulsory retirement, the penalty of a fine equivalent to three months’ salary was imposed, to be deducted from the retirement benefits.
Finding the recommendation of OCA to be appropriate under the circumstances, the Court finds that the penalty of a fine in the amount of P20,000.00 be imposed upon Quitorio, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
Let it again be stressed that all court employees, being public servants in an office dispensing justice, must always act with a high degree of professionalism and responsibility. Their conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be in accordance with the law and court regulations. Court employees should be models of uprightness, fairness and honesty to maintain the people’s respect and faith in the judiciary. They should avoid any act or conduct that would diminish public trust and confidence in the courts.[28]
WHEREFORE, Ernesto C. Quitorio, former Legal Researcher of Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar, is hereby found GUILTY of Simple Misconduct. He is ordered to pay a FINE in the amount of ₱20,000.00 to be deducted from his retirement benefits. The Court further directs that respondent’s retirement benefits be released to him, subject to the deduction of the fine imposed herein and the usual clearances.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[2] Id. at 10-12.
[3] Id. at 10.
[4] Id. at 324.
[5] Id. at 24-29.
[6] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 4, Dolores, Eastern Samar, October 17, 2007, 536 SCRA 313.
[7] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar, October 19, 2006, 504 SCRA 756.
[8] Rollo, p. 10.
[9] Manifestation, id. at 250-251.
[10] Id. at 32-34.
[11] Id. at 41.
[12] Id. at 55-56.
[13] Id. at 310-311.
[14] Id. at 91-92.
[15] Id. at 103-108.
[16] Id. at 152-168.
[17] Id. at 171-185.
[18] Id. at 269-270.
[19] Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez, A.M. No. P-10-2788, January 18, 2011.
[20] A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC.
[21] Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, 508 Phil. 569, 579-580 (2005).
[22] Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez, supra note 19.
[23] Section 52. Classification of Offenses. – Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity of depravity and effects on the government service.
x x x
B. The following are less grave offenses with the corresponding penalties:
x x x
2. Simple Misconduct
1st Offense – Suspension 1 mo. 1 day to 6 mos.
2nd Offense - Dismissal
[24] CSC Resolution No. 99-1936.
[25] Donton v. Loria, A.M. No. P-03-1684, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 224, 232-233.
[26] Escalona v. Padillo, A.M. No. P-10-2785, September 21, 2010.
[27] Leyrit v. Solas, A.M. No. P-08-2567, October 30, 2009, 604 SCRA 668, 683.
[28] Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez, supra note 19.
