Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > August 1975 Decisions > A.M. No. P-147 August 29, 1975 - ANDRES SUCK v. ROLANDO DIAZ:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-147. August 29, 1975.]

ANDRES SUCK, Complainant, v. ROLANDO DIAZ, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Respondent Clerk of Court was charged with incompetence, conduct highly unbecoming a court official, and coercion. The controversy stems from respondent’s refusal to investigate and take action on the administrative charges filed by complaint against her husband, respondent insisting that it was indispensable for complainant to be represented by counsel. The complainant’s charge against her husband was for negligence or dereliction of duty as a government employee in that he continued to receive his salary as such although he was actually working in his farm.

The Supreme Court held respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty and suspended him from office for six months.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; CLERK OF COURT; DUTY OF. — As a responsible, ranking official of a Court of First Instance and a member of the Philippine Bar, respondent Clerk of Court is called upon to assist complainant in obtaining relief she was seeking for in the most expeditious and simplified manner possible without seeing complexities in the case where there was none and setting upon requirements which the nature of the complaint did not call for.

2. ID.; ID.; REFUSAL TO PROCEED WITH INVESTIGATION CONSTITUTES DERELICTION OF DUTY. — A Clerk of Court’s refusal to proceed with the investigation of a complaint by a woman who claims to have been abandoned or neglected by her husband, a court employee under direct supervision of said Clerk of Court — unless the complainant was represented by counsel constitutes a serious neglect of duty and a callous disregard for the sad plight of the complainant, and warrants the imposition of six months’ suspension from office. His lack of malice may only serve to mitigate his liability.


D E C I S I O N


MUÑOZ PALMA, J.:


Respondent Rolando Diaz, Clerk of Court, Branch III, Court of First Instance of Cavite City, is charged with incompetence, conduct highly unbecoming a court official, and coercion. The offended party is Mrs. Encarnacion Arciaga Soriño to whom We shall henceforth refer as the complainant for and in whose behalf the present complaint was filed by Andres Suck, a brother-in-law.

It is claimed by Mrs. Soriño that she filed an administrative case against her husband, Andres Soriño, an employee of Branch III, which was assigned to respondent for investigation, and notwithstanding the several subpoenas sent to her and her appearance pursuant thereto, no hearing was ever held by respondent under the pretext that she was not represented by counsel; she reasoned out with respondent that she had been advised by an official of the Civil Service Commission that it was not necessary to have a lawyer because her evidence was complete and mainly documentary but respondent insisted that she should have a counsel on one occasion respondent shouted at her and slammed the door of his office to her face.

Denying that he ever shouted at complainant or acted discourteously, respondent nevertheless admitted that he required Mrs. Soriño to secure the services of a lawyer to assist her in prosecuting her complaint against her husband because be wanted to avoid any suspicion later on that he was partial in the conduct of the investigation against a subordinate in his office.

The present controversy stems mainly from the fact that respondent did not investigate and take action on the administrative complaint filed by Mrs. Soriño against her husband simply because he believed that it was indispensable for the complainant to be represented by counsel. We take the view that respondent’s action was unwarranted.

From the record, We gather that Mrs. Soriño’s charge against her husband was for negligence or dereliction of duty as a government employee because he continued to receive his salary as such although he was actually working in his farm in Mindoro. This matter could have very well been inquired into by respondent inasmuch as all that was needed was to check if his subordinate was indeed absent from his work and if his absence was on an authorized leave from the court. As argued and explained by Mrs. Soriño all her evidence was documentary, presumably based on the very records of the court to which respondent had access, he being the immediate superior of the employee concerned. There was therefore no necessity for Mrs. Soriño to undergo expense in securing the services of a lawyer for purposes of her complaint. In fact, respondent herein motu proprio should have investigated the complaint of Mrs. Soriño after his attention had been called to the alleged absence of Andres Soriño from work it being a matter which involved the efficiency of his office personnel.

Respondent’s alleged apprehension that he may be suspected of partiality should he proceed with the investigation, is a strained one considering that the outcome of such investigation will be based on the records of the court. All that was to be done was to verify if Mrs. Soriño’s husband was on authorized leave of absence, with or without pay, and the grounds of such leave if any, and for respondent to submit a report to the Executive Judge of the Court on the result of his investigation. We cannot see under what circumstances respondent may be suspected of partiality unless of course he justifies the absence of any employee of the office notwithstanding the records of the court which speak to the contrary.

Although the Investigating Judge to whom this complaint was referred for investigation 1 reports that there was no evil motive or malice on the part of respondent and recommends the dismissal of the case, still We hold that respondent’s inaction warrants strong disciplinary measure against him his lack of malice may only serve to mitigate his liability.

As a responsible, ranking official of a court of first instance, holding the position of clerk of court since 1965 and a member of the bar, respondent was called upon to assist the herein complainant in obtaining the relief she was seeking for in the most expeditious and simplified manner possible without seeing complexities in the case where there was none and setting up requirements which the nature of the complaint did not call for.

Respondent’s refusal to proceed with the investigation of Mrs. Soriño’s complaint unless the latter was represented by counsel constitutes under the circumstances, a serious neglect of duty and a callous disregard for the sad plight of the complainant who claims to have been abandoned or neglected by her husband, a court employee under the direct supervision of Respondent.

The other charges of discourtesy and conduct unbecoming of a public official have not been established according to the findings of the Honorable Investigator.

WHEREFORE, We hold respondent Rolando Diaz GUILTY of gross neglect of duty and order his SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS effective immediately upon the finality of this Decision, with a warning that a repetition of similar conduct will merit a more severe disciplinary action against him.

The Judicial Consultant is directed to cause the investigation of the complaint of Mrs. Soriño against Andres Soriño, an employee in Branch III, Court of First Instance of Cavite, and to report to the Court the result of such investigation within ten (10) days from notice hereof.

So Ordered.

Castro (Chairman), Teehankee, Makasiar and Martin, JJ., concur.

Esguerra, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. In an Indorsement dated April 5, 1973, the complaint of Mrs. Soriño against respondent Diaz was referred by the Office of the Secretary of Justice to the Executive District Judge, Court of First Instance. Cavite City, for investigation, report and recommendation. (p. 10, Rollo).

On June 28, 1973, Executive Judge Amador T. Vallejos submitted his Report recommending dismissal of the complaint. (pp. 98-108, ibid).

On May 8, 1974, the record of the case was received by this Court from the Department of Justice for proper action.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-26869 August 6, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MARIANO CU UNJIENG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28398 August 6, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JOHN L. MANNING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29432 August 6, 1975 - JAI-ALAI CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLAND

  • G.R. No. L-31665 August 6, 1975 - LEONARDO ALMEDA v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ

  • G.R. No. L-38745 August 6, 1975 - LUCIA TAN v. ARADOR VALDEHUEZA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 449-MJ August 7, 1975 - PEDRO H. YARANON v. ANTONIO RUBIO

  • G.R. No. L-21161 August 7, 1975 - PACIFICA EVANGELISTA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-26428 August 7, 1975 - AMADEO H. CRUZ v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. L-27762 August 7, 1975 - AQUILINO C. MAULEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28329 August 7, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-35946 August 7, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20085 August 8, 1975 - PHILIPPINE TOBACCO FLUE CURING AND REDRYING CORPORATION v. RIZALINO PABLO

  • G.R. No. L-29130 August 8, 1975 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DIONISIO MIRANG

  • G.R. No. L-32495 August 13, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO S. MOISES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27813 August 15, 1975 - ATLAS FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-26321 August 19, 1975 - CITY OF CEBU, ET AL. v. JOSE M. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-32387 August 19, 1975 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. NDC EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40552 August 20, 1975 - DIOSDADO T. ABUGOTAL v. MEYNARDO A. TIRO

  • G.R. No. L-27916 August 21, 1975 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-28566 August 21, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO OGAPAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40970 August 21, 1975 - IN RE: PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. TEOTIMO TANGONAN

  • G.R. No. L-29776 August 27, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ECHALUCE, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. P-165 August 28, 1975 - DANIEL GUTIERREZ v. VIRGINIA G. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20869 August 28, 1975 - ALICIA O. ARCEGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27410 August 28, 1975 - DINA TUZON v. CESAR C. CRUZ

  • A.M. No. P-147 August 29, 1975 - ANDRES SUCK v. ROLANDO DIAZ

  • A.C. No. 1162 August 29, 1975 - IN RE: VICTORIO D. LANUEVO

  • G.R. No. L-19620 August 29, 1975 - IN RE: OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF TIRSO LORENZO v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22554 August 29, 1975 - DELFIN LIM, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO PONCE DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22782 August 29, 1975 - IGNACIO GONE, ET AL. v. DISTRICT ENGINEER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26762 August 29, 1975 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-27204 August 29, 1975 - CASIMIRO V. ARKONCEL v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BASILAN CITY

  • G.R. No. L-27771 August 29, 1975 - MAXIMO CALALANG, ET AL. v. JUAN DE BORJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29724 August 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURO TIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32534 August 29, 1975 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION-AFL-VIMCONTU v. ANTONIO D. CINCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32641 August 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAGUIA UNDONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37034 August 29, 1975 - JACQUELINE INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-38076-80 August 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO VENZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39087 August 29, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO Q. DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40018 August 29, 1975 - NORTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. JORGE R. COQUIA

  • G.R. No. L-40098 August 29, 1975 - ANTONIO LIM TANHU, ET AL. v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40474 August 29, 1975 - CEBU OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO., INC. v. PASCUAL A. BERCILLES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40486 August 29, 1975 - PAULINO PADUA, ET AL. v. GREGORIO N. ROBLES, ET AL.