Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > November 1982 Decisions > A.M. No. P-292 November 25, 1982 - ISIDRO G. ARENAS v. MANUEL RESULTAN, SR.

204 Phil. 279:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. P-292. November 25, 1982.]

ATTY. ISIDRO G. ARENAS, Complainant, v. MANUEL RESULTAN, SR., Clerk of Court, City Court, San Carlos City, Branch X, San Carlos City, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Respondent branch clerk of court was administratively charged with a) infidelity in the custody of public record and b) discourtesy, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, in connection with the loss of the records of Criminal Case No. CC-875. During the investigation, it was found that respondent did not destroy the missing record for any illicit purpose; that there was no proof of evil motive by respondent in connection with the loss of said record; that there was no evidence of damage to the parties because the missing record was reconstituted the moment he was apprised of the loss; that the parties in the criminal case for theft and respondent’s counsel acquiesced in the reconstitution of the record; and that a fair trial was conducted and the accused was convicted. The Office of the Court Administrator agreed with the Inquest Judge that respondent should be exonerated but recommended further that respondent be admonished to be more vigilant in the exercise of his functions as clerk of court and in the supervision of his subordinates.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case but admonished respondent to exercise greater care in the custody of official documents, and warned him that a repetition of the same or any similar act or omission shall be administratively dealt with more severely.


SYLLABUS


CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST A BRANCH CLERK OF COURT; INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF PUBLIC RECORD; COMPLAINT DISMISSED BUT RESPONDENT WAS ADMONISHED AND WARNED. — Respondent branch clerk of court, being a public officer, is bound virtute oficii to bring to the discharge of his duties the prudence, caution, and attention which careful men usually exercise in the management of their affairs. Hence, despite dismissal of a complaint for infidelity in the custody of public record arising from the loss of the records of a criminal case under his custody, the Supreme Court admonished respondent branch clerk of court to exercise greater care in the custody of official documents and warned him that a repetition of the same or any similar act or omission shall be administratively dealt with more severely.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:


In a letter-complaint addressed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Atty. Isidro G. Arenas charged the clerk of court of the City Court of San Carlos City with (1) infidelity of public record (sic) and (2) discourtesy, inefficiency, and incompetence in the performance of official duties, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

On the first charge, complainant Arenas alleged that respondent Resultan could not locate the records of Criminal Case No. CC-875 entitled "People of the Philippines, plaintiff v. Rodrigo de Guzman, Accused" notwithstanding repeated demands especially when the complainant asked about the regularity of the bail bond posted by the accused.

On the second charge, the complainant alleged that when he verified the records of the criminal case in order to file the bail bond of the accused, the respondent in a very arrogant attitude and with disrespect towards the complainant did not give courtesy and neglected to attend to complainant’s inquiry.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Respondent Resultan stated in his answer that on July 3, 1974, between 12:00 o’clock noon and 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon, a certain Juan Tuazon and Irineo de Guzman, Accused in a case for violation of a city ordinance on drunkenness, came to see him upon instructions of the City Judge to inquire about being bailed out under the Laurel Law. Shortly afterwards, complainant Isidro Arenas arrived and it was observed that "he was strongly under the influence of liquor." Arenas allegedly asked Resultan why de Guzman was required to post a bond. Resultan claimed that instead of answering Arenas, he directed a question to de Guzman, "why, did I tell you to post a bond?", which Arenas resented. Whereupon, Resultan was allegedly hit with fist blows and kicks by Arenas and was forced to run to the office of the police department and eventually file charges leading to a criminal complaint. Atty. Arenas was formerly the judge of the same city court of San Carlos City but his courtesy resignation was accepted sometime after the proclamation of martial law. Resultan named eight (8) personnel of the city court, including the city judge, who had access to court records.

Resultan further alleged:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is admitted that before the incident on July 3, 1974, your respondent was already aware as was (sic) informed by the Clerk, Mrs. Virginia Fernandez that the record of Crim. Case No. CC-875 was missing, so that exhaustive efforts were exerted since then up to the present to locate and recover the same, but still in vain. Notwithstanding the disappearance of the record, the case was tried on July 10, 1974 as scheduled, reset for August 8, 1974 which hearing was postponed to and held on August 16, 1974. Informed of the predicament, neither one of the parties nor their counsels complained, because it cause no damage and prejudice at all as the record of the case was already reconstructed."cralaw virtua1aw library

and mentioned the bases of his "strong suspicion that the missing record was taken by or lost at the instance of the complainant, Atty. Isidro G. Arenas."cralaw virtua1aw library

We agree with the following findings of Deputy Court Administrator Romeo D. Mendoza, concurred in by officer-in-charge Arturo B. Buena of the Office of the Court Administrator:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Executive Judge Augusto O. Saroca in his report and recommendation (Rollo, pp. 51-55) reported that when this case was called for investigation, ‘complainant failed to show up despite due notice to him. Respondent, however, appeared with counsel.’The case was again called the next day. Still the complainant failed to appear but respondent appeared with counsel and submitted himself for investigation.’

Respondent testified that when he was informed of the loss of the records of Criminal Case No. CC-875, ‘he made painstaking efforts to locate the same but all proved futile’, that he ‘reconstructed the records of the missing case’, that the accused was tried and convicted, and ‘served his sentence in the city jail of San Carlos’, that he was charged in the office of the City Fiscal of San Carlos for infidelity in the custody of documents in connection with loss of the records in the said criminal case, but he was exonerated in a resolution of Asst. City Fiscal Jaime Olegario dated October 16, 1974 for lack of probable cause. (’Exhibits 2 to 2-b’).

"The Inquest Judge reported that he found that respondent did not destroy the missing record for any illicit purpose; that there is no proof of evil motive by respondent in connection with the loss of said record. He also found that there was ‘no evidence of damage to the parties because the missing record was reconstituted the moment he was apprised of its loss; that the parties in the criminal case for theft and respondent’s counsel acquiesced to the reconstitution of the record: and that ‘a fair trial was conducted and the accused was convicted.’

"According to the same investigating judge, the voluntary desistance of complainant to prosecute the case when called in formal administrative investigation is ample proof that there was no damage caused even to the said complainant. The investigating judge recommended that the case be dismissed and respondent be exonerated.

"We find no reason to disturb the recommendation of the Inquest Judge. The probability leans heavily in favor of what was asserted by Respondent. There can be no doubt, that respondent acted in good faith in ordering the reconstitution of the records of the criminal case, which after continued and repeated search, the same could not be found.

"There was also absence of improper reconsideration and/or damage caused the parties. It is understandable then why the recommendation of the investigating judge was for the dismissal of the complaint."cralaw virtua1aw library

We likewise approve the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator that respondent Resultan, being a public officer, is bound virtute oficii to bring to the discharge of his duties the prudence, caution, and attention which careful men usually exercise in the management of their affairs and, therefore, he should be admonished to be more vigilant in the exercise of his functions as clerk of court and in the supervision of his subordinates. The respondent has no other administrative case filed against him.chanrobles law library : red

WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against respondent Manuel Resultan, Sr. is hereby dismissed but the respondent is admonished to exercise greater care in the custody of official documents, and warned that a repetition of the same or any similar act or omission shall be administratively dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando (Chairman), Teehankee, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez and Relova, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., took no part.




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






November-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-2221 November 2, 1982 - CIPRIANO ABENOJAR v. DOMINGO LOPEZ

    203 Phil. 385

  • A.M. No. 2739-CFI November 2, 1982 - TERESITA DE CASTRO v. IGNACIO CAPULONG

    203 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-27152 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS E. TORIO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 398

  • G.R. No. L-34079 November 2, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-34517 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SlMEON GANUT

    203 Phil. 421

  • G.R. No. L-39518 November 2, 1982 - AGRICULTURAL & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 436

  • G.R. No. L-44039 November 2, 1982 - ROLANDO A. DATUIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 442

  • G.R. No. L-47460 November 2, 1982 - AMELIA DELEGENTE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 447

  • G.R. No. L-48196 November 2, 1982 - ROLANDO BAUTISTA v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 469

  • G.R. No. L-50298 November 2, 1982 - JOSEPH Y. PUNAY v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 475

  • G.R. No. L-50358 November 2, 1982 - SHIPSIDE, INCORPORATED v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 481

  • G.R. No. L-52823 November 2, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MIDPANTAO ADIL, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 492

  • G.R. No. L-53465 November 2, 1982 - ANTONIO NITURA v. JOSE C. COLAYCO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 503

  • G.R. No. L-54439 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE Of THE PHIL. v. JESUS N. MONTEZ

    203 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-55645 November 2, 1982 - RICARDO CENIZA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-56909 November 2, 1982 - FLORENCIA B. SAN VALENTIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 534

  • G.R. No. L-58578 November 2, 1982 - JOSE GEROMO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 539

  • G.R. No. L-59054 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MUSTAPA ALIBASA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 559

  • G.R. No. L-34597 November 5, 1982 - ROSITO Z. BACARRO, ET AL. v. GERUNDIO B. CASTAÑO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 563

  • G.R. No. L-36033 November 5, 1982 - IN RE: APOLONIO TABOADA v. AVELINO S. ROSAL, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 572

  • G.R. No. L-61870 November 5, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTINO D. PERALTA

    203 Phil. 580

  • G.R. No. L-49004 November 10, 1982 - NG LIT v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 592

  • A.M. No. 702-CTJ November 15, 1982 - ELISA VDA. DE OCHOA, ET AL. v. GERINO M. TOLENTINO

    203 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-26325 November 15, 1982 - PACWELD STEEL CORPORATION v. ASIA STEEL CORPORATION

    203 Phil. 606

  • G.R. No. L-31366 November 15, 1982 - ASIAN SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ISLAND STEEL, INC., ET AL.

    203 Phil. 611

  • G.R. No. L-34834 November 15, 1982 - ARTURO H. TROCIO v. LUIS D. MANTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39258 November 15, 1982 - RAYMUNDO A. ARMOVIT, ET AL. v. AMANTE P. PURISIMA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 625

  • G.R. No. L-42540 November 15, 1982 - VICTOR NEPOMUCENO, ET AL. v. JUAN B. MONTECILLO, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 632

  • G.R. No. L-52325 November 15, 1982 - CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-53060 November 15, 1982 - ROSARIO T. MAMERTO, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 644

  • G.R. No. 55771 November 15, 1982 - TAHANAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 652

  • G.R. No. L-56479 November 15, 1982 - SOCORRO L. VDA. DE STA. ROMANA v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 708

  • G.R. Nos. L-56695-98 November 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIBSON A. ARAULA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 719

  • G.R. No. L-61663 November 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO L. REGLOS, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 724

  • G.R. No. L-61997 November 15, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. ELFREN PARTISALA, ET AL.

    203 Phil. 750

  • A.C. No. 641 November 19, 1982 - FRANCISCO RADOMES v. FERNANDO FABRIGARAS

    204 Phil. 1

  • A.C. No. 1675 November 19, 1982 - BELEN A. RIVERA v. ORLANDO LATONERO

    204 Phil. 4

  • A.M. No. P-1935 November 19, 1982 - BENJAMIN DAAG v. HONORIO SERRANO

    204 Phil. 9

  • G.R. No. L-30690 November 19, 1982 - BF HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 15

  • G.R. No. L-30854 November 19, 1982 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 21

  • G.R. No. L-34362 November 19, 1982 - MODESTA CALIMLIM, ET AL. v. PEDRO A. RAMIREZ, ET AL.

    204 Phil.25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. L-35718 November 19, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 38

  • G.R. No. L-37712 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SYQUIOCO

    204 Phil. 42

  • G.R. No. L-38258 November 19, 1982 - LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWANG MAKABAYAN v. MARCELO ENTERPRISES, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 50

  • G.R. No. L-39503 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCRESIO CARDENAS

    204 Phil. 88

  • G.R. No. L-39528 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY MONAGA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 98

  • G.R. No. L-44686 November 19, 1982 - MACARIO MANUEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 110

  • G.R. No. L-44817 November 19, 1982 - LEA PAZ TUAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 117

  • G.R. No. L-46729 November 19, 1982 - LAUSAN AYOG, ET AL. v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49140 November 19, 1982 - QUASHA ASPERILLA ANCHETA VALMONTE PEÑA & MARCOS v. CELESTINO P. JUAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 141

  • G.R. No. L-54158 November 19, 1982 - PAGASA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 162

  • G.R. No. L-55079 November 19, 1982 - METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY v. FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 172

  • G.R. No. L-55539 November 19, 1982 - DIOSA DE LEON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 180

  • G.R. No. L-55624 November 19, 1982 - BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 194

  • G.R. No. L-56761 November 19, 1982 - MARIANO TOLEDO, ET AL. v. BERNARDO P. PARDO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 203

  • G.R. No. L-57170 November 19, 1982 - KO BU LIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 211

  • G.R. No. L-57440 November 19, 1982 - D. D. COMENDADOR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MARCELINO N. SAYO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 227

  • G.R. Nos. L-57477-78 November 19, 1982 - HEIRS OF WILLIAM SEVILLA, ET AL. v. DIMALANES B. BUISSAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 237

  • G.R. No. L-57707 November 19, 1982 - PHILEX MINING CORPORATION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 241

  • G.R. No. L-58506 November 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 247

  • G.R. No. L-59463 November 19, 1982 - PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA v. IMPERIAL MINING COMPANY, INC.

    204 Phil. 262

  • G.R. No. L-59596 November 19, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 268

  • G.R. No. L-60950 November 19, 1982 - J.D. MAGPAYO CUSTOMS BROKERAGE CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 276

  • A.M. No. P-292 November 25, 1982 - ISIDRO G. ARENAS v. MANUEL RESULTAN, SR.

    204 Phil. 279

  • A.C. No. 2662-CFI November 26, 1982 - FLAVIANO A. PELMOKA v. FELIX T. DIAZ, JR.

    204 Phil. 283

  • G.R. No. L-30391 November 25, 1982 - ASSOCIATED SUGAR, INC., ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 289

  • G.R. No. L-35630 November 25, 1982 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. v. GALAURAN & PILARES CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL.

    204 Phil. 296

  • G.R. No. L-35757 November 25, 1982 - LUCIA LUSUNG v. SUSANA VDA. DE SANTOS

    204 Phil. 302

  • G.R. No. L-36364 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO DASCIL, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 309

  • G.R. No. L-38423 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL PIMENTEL

    204 Phil. 327

  • G.R. No. L-38449 November 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR MANZANO

    204 Phil. 339

  • G.R. No. L-50548 November 25, 1982 - CONCHING ALVARO, ET AL. v. HOSPICIO ZAPATA, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 356

  • G.R. No. L-56025 November 25, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO M. GONONG, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 364

  • G.R. Nos. L-56224-26 November 25, 1982 - PURISIMA GESTOSO CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 372

  • G.R. Nos. L-61067-68 November 25, 1982 - MITSUI & CO., LTD. v. MANUEL G. ABELLO, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 384

  • G.R. No. L-33724 November 29, 1982 - ELIGIA BATBATAN. v. OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF PAGADIAN, ET AL.

    204 Phil. 379