ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
A collection of Philippine laws, statutes and codes not included or cited in the main indices of the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
Search for
www.chanrobles.com:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 76 -
DISMISSING FROM THE SERVICE ALFREDO M. GARGOLES, ASSISTANT FISCAL,
OFFICE OF THE CITY FISCAL OF MANILA
This refers to the administrative complaint
filed by Maria Tuazon de la Cruz against Assistant Fiscal Alfredo M.
Gargoles, Office of the City Fiscal of Manila, for (a) shouting
defamatory and threatening remarks at her while under the influence of
liquor; (b) acting as counsel for a private party and appearing in the
fiscal's office and the court in Navotas during office hours; and (c)
practicing his profession without permission from the Department of
Justice.
A formal investigation of the complaint was ordered to be conducted by
the Secretary of Justice. Notices were then sent to the parties.
However, despite thereof, respondent fiscal failed to appear during the
investigation. Hence, he was deemed to have waived his right to
confront and cross-examine the complainant and her witnesses. The
complainant thus presented her evidence ex parte.
After the formal investigation was terminated, the Secretary of
Justice, in his Memorandum of April 18, 1988, recommended the dismissal
of respondent from the service. In support of his recommendation, he
stated that:
"After a careful and judicious evaluation of the evidence, we find the
allegations of the complainant and her witnesses to be more credible.
"Complainant's version of the April 18, 1987 incident when Fiscal
Gargoles, who was drunk, confronted complainant is more convincing as
against Fiscal Gargoles' defense that the incident is a mere
fabrication. In her narration of the incident as it occurred,
complainant stated that Fiscal Gargoles had to inquire and ascertain
first if she was 'Aling Maring' and upon her reply that she was the
one, Fiscal Gargoles then proceeded with his tirade in the manner
hereinafter quoted. Unwittingly, Fiscal Gargoles corroborated
complainant's averment with respect to her identity when he stated in
his Reply Affidavit that he does not know the complainant personally
thus the need to inquire and ascertain complainant's identity. The
manner by which Fiscal Gargoles conducted himself particularly where he
brandished unabashedly the fact that he is the Fiscal of Manila and
that he is handling the case of Leticia Doria to impress upon
complainant his power and authority (being the Fiscal of Manila),
constitutes grave misconduct. Fiscal Gargoles did not only disgrace
himself but in the process inflicted perdition upon his fellow fiscals.
Under Civil Service Rules and Regulations, grave misconduct is a grave
offense (CSC MC No. 8, June 26, 1970).
"Fiscal Gargoles and his witnesses, former clients of his, admitted to
the fact that he had been attending to his clients' cases by appearing
in the fiscal's office and the court in Navotas during office hours.
Certifications were issued to the effect that on April 21, May 7 and
May 28, 1987, Fiscal Gargoles had not filed any Leave of Absence and
that on those dates, he received his salary. Considering that it is a
requisite for the payment of the salary that a fiscal must file a
certification upon his honor that he has rendered service for the
salary period covered for which the salary is being claimed, the fact
that he received his salary for those dates when he was not attending
to his official duties without filing a leave of absence corresponding
to the said dates indubitably implies that Fiscal Gargoles did not
truthfully state the extent of the service he had rendered for the
government in the accomplishment of the required certification. In this
regard we find Fiscal Gargoles guilty of dishonesty, a grave offense
under Civil Service Rules.
"Finally, our records do not show that Fiscal Gargoles had requested
permission for him to handle his clients' cases as required by Sec. 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, which provides:
'Sec. 12. — No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private
business, vocation, or profession without a written permission from the
head of Department. . . .'
"Under the Rules, this infraction is classified as a light offense."
After a careful review of the case, I agree with, and adopt the
findings and recommendation of, the Secretary of Justice, supported as
they are by the evidence on record.
WHEREFORE, and upon recommendation of the Secretary of Justice,
respondent Assistant Fiscal Alfredo M. Gargoles of the Office of the
City Fiscal, City of Manila, is hereby dismissed from the service,
effective upon receipt of a copy hereof.
Done in the City of Manila,
Philippines, this 27th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred and eighty-eight.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.
