ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
October-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137841 October 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 117512 October 2, 2001 - REBECCA ALA-MARTIN v. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN

  • G.R. No. 120098 October 2, 2001 - RUBY L. TSAI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS EVER TEXTILE MILLS

  • G.R. No. 124037 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 126592 October 2, 2001 - ROMEO G. DAVID v. JUDGE TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129900 October 2, 2001 - JANE CARAS y SOLITARIO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133000 October 2, 2001 - PATRICIA NATCHER petitioner v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HEIRS OF GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO-LETICIA DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 133895 October 2, 2001 - ZENAIDA M. SANTOS v. CALIXTO SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135522-23 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMORSOLO G. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 137777 October 2, 2001 - THE PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 - GRACE J. GARCIA v. REDERICK A. RECIO

  • G.R. No. 138929 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. 139050 October 2, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and AGFHA

  • G.R. No. 142877 October 2, 2001 - JINKIE CHRISTIE A. DE JESUS and JACQUELINE A. DE JESUS v. THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT JUAN GAMBOA DIZON

  • G.R. No. 125081 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REMEDIOS PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 128195 October 3, 2001 - ELIZABETH LEE and PACITA YULEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. Nos. 128514 & 143856-61 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NILO LEONES

  • G.R. Nos. 142602-05 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA

  • A.M. No. 01-6-192-MCTC October 5, 2001 - Request To Designate Another Judge To Try And Decide Criminal Case No. 3713

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1610 October 5, 2001 - ATTY. EDGAR H. TALINGDAN v. JUDGE HENEDINO P. EDUARTE

  • G.R. No. 124498 October 5, 2001 - EDDIE B. SABANDAL v. HON. FELIPE S. TONGCO Presiding Judge

  • G.R. No. 127441 October 5, 2001 - DOROTEO TOBES @ DOTING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 130499 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAMFILO QUIMSON @ "NOEL QUIMSON

  • G.R. No. 130962 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE REAPOR y SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 131040 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRAMIO SABAGALA

  • G.R. No. 132044 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO @ Tony EVANGELISTA Y BINAY

  • G.R. No. 132718 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE CASTILLON III and JOHN DOE

  • G.R. Nos. 135452-53 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO M. ALCOREZA

  • G.R. No. 139760 October 5, 2001 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 144189 October 5, 2001 - R & M GENERAL MERCHANDISE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121948 October 8, 2001 - PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. BENEDICTO FABURADA

  • G.R. No. 123075 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO L. NUELAN

  • G.R. No. 129926 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLE M. ZATE

  • G.R. No. 137599 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT BAULITE and LIBERATO BAULITE

  • G.R. No. 138941 October 8, 2001 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY v. TANTUCO ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. No. 141297 October 8, 2001 - DOMINGO R. MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Twelfth Division) and PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • A.M. No. 01-9-246-MCTC October 9, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON

  • G.R. No. 138886 October 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SP01 WILFREDO LEAÑO SP01 FERDINAND MARZAN SPO1 RUBEN B. AGUSTIN SP02 RODEL T. MADERAL * SP02 ALEXANDER S. MICU and SP04 EMILIO M. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 141182 October 9, 2001 - HEIRS OF PEDRO CUETO Represented by ASUNCION CUETO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER FIRST DIVISION) and CONSOLACION COMPUESTO

  • A.M. No. 99-12-03-SC October 10, 2001 - RE: INITIAL REPORTS ON THE GRENADE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT ABOUT 6:40 A.M. ON DECEMBER 6, 1999

  • G.R. No. 129313 October 10, 2001 - SPOUSES MA. CRISTINA D. TIRONA and OSCAR TIRONA v. HON. FLORO P. ALEJO as Presiding Judge

  • G.R. Nos. 135679 & 137375 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. 136258 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FELICIANO

  • A.M. No. 2001-9-SC October 11, 2001 - DOROTEO IGOY v. GILBERT SORIANO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1485 October 11, 2001 - TEOFILO C. SANTOS v. JUDGE FELICIANO V. BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. 80796 & 132885 October 11, 2001 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON

  • G.R. No. 118387 October 11, 2001 - MARCELO LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS and HON. LORENZO B. VENERACION and HON. JAIME T. HAMOY

  • G.R. Nos. 123913-14 October 11,2001

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO CALLOS

  • G.R. No. 130415 October 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALVIN YRAT y BUGAHOD and RAUL JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130562 October 11, 2001 - Brigida Conculada v. Hon. Court Of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 112526 October 12, 2001 - STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 122710 October 12, 2001 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS and REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION

  • G.R. Nos. 134769-71 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BATION

  • G.R. No. 137843 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO S. AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 139904 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 136470 October 16, 2001 - VENANCIO R. NAVA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 140794 October 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO T. AGLIDAY

  • A.M. No. P-00-7-323-RTJ October 17, 2001 - RE: RELEASE BY JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, RTC, BRANCH 54 MANILA, OF AN ACCUSED IN A NON-BAILABLE OFFENSE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1419 October 17, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAGDALENA G. MAGNO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 & AM RTJ-98-1411 October 17, 2001 - ATTY. CESAR B. MERIS v. JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. No. 123137 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL

  • G.R. No. 124513 October 17, 2001 - ROBERTO ERQUIAGA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127540 October 17, 2001 - EUGENIO DOMINGO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127830 October 17, 2001 - MANOLET LAVIDES v. ERNESTO B. PRE

  • G.R. No. 129069 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO R. RECTO

  • G.R. No. 129236 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO G. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 129389 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEODORICO UBALDO

  • G.R. Nos. 132673-75 October 17, 200

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR C. GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. 136291 October 17, 2001 - LETICIA M. MAGSINO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 136869 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DENNIS MAZO

  • G.R. No. 141673 October 17, 2001 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY/AUGUSTO B. SUNICO v. NLRC (Third Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142726 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 143190 October 17, 2001 - ANTONIO P. BELICENA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

  • G.R. No. 143990 October 17, 2001 - MARIA L. ANIDO v. FILOMENO NEGADO and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 121039-45 October 18, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAYOR ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 132869 October 18, 2001 - GREGORIO DE VERA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143486 October 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO DUMAGAY TUADA

  • G.R. No. 144735 October 18, 2001 - YU BUN GUAN v. ELVIRA ONG

  • G.R. No. 116285 October 19, 2001 - ANTONIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS and the .C.C.P

  • G.R. Nos. 121201-02 October 19, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee v. GIO CONCORCIO @ JUN

  • G.R. No. 129995 October 19, 2001 - THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN v. HON. PEDRO VILLAFUERTE

  • G.R. No. 130730 October 19, 2001 - HERNANDO GENER v. GREGORIO DE LEON and ZENAIDA FAUSTINO

  • G.R. No. 133002 October 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTOY GALLO @ PALALAM

  • G.R. No. 137904 October 19, 2001 - PURIFICACION M. VDA. DE URBANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS)

  • A.M. No. 99-12-497-RTC October 23, 2001 - REQUEST OF JUDGE FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • G.R. No. 121267 October 23, 2001 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124036 October 23, 2001 - FIDELINO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124295 October 23, 2001 - JUDGE RENATO A. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO

  • G.R. No. 125193 October 23, 2001 - MANUEL BARTOCILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 130846 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO PAMILAR y REVOLIO

  • G.R. No. 131841 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN VILLARMOSA

  • G.R. No. 132373 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TIRSO ARCAY @ "TISOY" and TEODORO CLEMEN @ "BOY

  • G.R. No. 134740 October 23, 2001 - IRENE V. CRUZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 135481 October 23, 2001 - LIGAYA S. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136105 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO PAREDES y SAUQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 136337 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NELSON CABUNTOG

  • G.R. No. 139114 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMAN LACAP Y CAILLES

  • G.R. No. 139274 October 23, 2001 - QUEZON PROVINCE v. HON. ABELIO M. MARTE

  • G.R. No. 139329 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO MAKILANG

  • G.R. Nos. 140934-35 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONDE RAPISORA y ESTRADA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1634 October 25, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 102367 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABUNDIO ALBARIDO and BENEDICTO IGDOY

  • G.R. No. 126359 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CARLITO OLIVA

  • G.R. No. 127465 October 25, 2001 - SPOUSES NICETAS DELOS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 133102 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DINDO AMOGIS y CRINCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 134449-50 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO HERNANDEZ y PALMA

  • G.R. No. 135813 October 25, 2001 - FERNANDO SANTOS v. Spouses ARSENIO and NIEVES REYES

  • G.R. No. 135822 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PIO DACARA y NACIONAL

  • G.R. Nos. 137494-95 October 25, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOTERO REYES alias "TURING"

  • G.R. Nos. 142741-43 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO MANAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-01-1474 October 26, 2001 - ANTONIO C. REYES v. JOSEFINA F. DELIM

  • G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA

  • G.R. Nos. 121492 & 124325 October 26, 2001 - BAN HUA UY FLORES v. JOHNNY K.H. UY

  • G.R. No. 132169 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANICO NUEVO @ "SANY

  • G.R. No. 133741-42 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LINO VILLARUEL

  • G.R. No. 134802 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO Z. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 135920 October 26, 2001 - ENCARNACION ET AL. v. SEVERINA REALTY CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 140719 October 26, 2001 - NICOLAS UY DE BARON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140912 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO DIAZ Y SEVILLETA

  • G.R. No. 141540 October 26, 2001 - EDUARDO TAN v. FLORITA MUECO and ROLANDO MUECO

  • G.R. No. 143231 October 26, 2001 - ALBERTO LIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 144237 October 26, 2001 - WINSTON C. RACOMA v. MA. ANTONIA B. F. BOMA

  • G.R. Nos. 146319 & 146342 October 26, 2001 - BENJAMIN E. CAWALING v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 146593 October 26, 2001 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. P-00-1419   October 17, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAGDALENA G. MAGNO

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [A.M. No. P-00-1419. October 17, 2001.]

    OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. MAGDALENA G. MAGNO, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Jaen, Nueva Ecija, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    PER CURIAM:


    This is a case of dishonesty committed by respondent Clerk of Court Magdalena G. Magno of the Municipal Trial Court of Jaen, Nueva Ecija.

    The antecedent facts are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On March 26, 1999, a judicial audit and physical inventory of court cases was conducted in the Municipal Trial Court of Jaen, Nueva Ecija by a team from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in view of the forthcoming retirement of Presiding Judge Tiburcio V. Empaynado on May 21, 1999.

    In his Report to the Chief Justice dated November 15, 1999, then Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo included therein the information that according to a daily tabloid, Magdalena G. Magno, Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court of Jaen, Nueva Ecija, was entrapped and arrested in her office by Agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). She allegedly received marked money bills amounting to P4,000.00 which she demanded as "grease money" from one Leon Medestomas, plaintiff in Civil Case No. 2338 for ejectment with damages, for the implementation of a writ of execution/demolition issued therein.

    In a Resolution dated January 18, 2000, this Court requested the NBI Director to furnish it with the evaluation and report on the entrapment of respondent Magno.

    Then NBI Director Federico M. Opinion, Jr. complied with the request. On June 20, 2000, this Court referred his letter (with the required Evaluation and Report on the entrapment case) to the OCA.

    On August 29, 2000, this Court issued a Resolution directing that the NBI Evaluation and Report on the entrapment of Magno be docketed as A. M. No. P-00-1419 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Clerk of Court Magdalena G. Magno, MTC, Jaen, Nueva Ecija). In the same Resolution, Magno was suspended from office pending resolution of the case and was required to submit her comment on the NBI Report.

    The NBI Report states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "MTC (Jaen, Nueva Ecija) Clerk of Court MAGDALENA G. MAGNO demanded P4,000.00 ‘grease money’ from Complainant LEON MEDESTOMAS in exchange for the implementation of a writ of execution on a demolition order issued by the said trial court re: Civil Case No. 2338 (Ejectment with Damages). Subject MAGNO threatened Complainant that the writ of execution would not be prepared and implemented unless Complainant gave-in to Subject’s demand.

    a) Complaint against Clerk of Court MAGDALENA MAGNO for alleged extortion activities was filed directly in this Command by LEON M. MEDESTOMAS, assisted by his counsel Atty. ARSENIO REYES.

    b) On 24 August 1992, complaint for Ejectment with Damages was filed by spouses LEON and LYDIA MEDESTOMAS against FLORENTINO MEDESTOMAS before the Municipal Trial Court of Jaen, Nueva Ecija, and said case was docketed under Civil Case No. 2338 (Complaint dated 18 August 1992, Annex "B").

    c) On 29 March 1999, a Resolution was issued by Hon. TIBURCIO EMPAYNADO, Judge, MTC, Jaen, Nueva Ecija, relative to the aforesaid case. In that Resolution, the motion for demolition was granted and Judge EMPAYNADO ordered Clerk of Court MAGDALENA MAGNO to issue a Writ of Demolition (Resolution dated 29 March 1999, Annex "C").

    d) Subject MAGDALENA MAGNO demanded P4,000.00 cash from him for the issuance and implementation of Writ of Demolition and Subject threatened him that she is the only one who could cause the issuance and implementation of the said Demolition Order (Sworn Statement of LEON M. MEDESTOMAS, Annex "D").

    e) An entrapment operation against Subject was planned by this Command. For this purpose, a Forensic Chemist was summoned for the dusting and marking of money bills which will be utilized for the said operation (Request for Forensic Examination dated 30 April 1999, Photocopies of marked and dusted money bills, Annexes "E" & "F").

    f) On 30 April 1999, Agents of this Command arrested Subject inside her office in MTC, Jaen, Nueva Ecija and found in her possession were marked money bills and unsigned Writ of Demolition pertaining to Civil Case No. 2338 (Joint Affidavit of Arresting Agents, Unsigned Writ of Demolition, Annexes "G" & "H").

    g) Subject MAGNO was immediately brought to our office, where she was photographed, booked and fingerprinted. After she was apprised of her constitutional rights, she opted to remain silent (Booking Sheet, Arrest Report and Arrest Information Sheet, Annexes "I" & "J").

    h) Complainant gave to Subject the P 4,000.00 marked money bills who in turn showed to him an unsigned Writ of Demolition which according to Subject would now be forwarded to the Sheriff for execution (Supplemental Sworn Statement of LEON M. MEDESTOMAS, Annex "K").

    i) Subject was interviewed relative to her defense that the said P4,000.00 was not intended for her but to the Sheriff who would . . . implement the said order, but she could not give the name of the Sheriff, which led the Undersigned to a conclusion that there is NONE.

    j) Ultraviolet light examinations conducted on the dorsal and palmar aspects of the left and right hands of Subject showed the presence of fluorescent specks and smudges. Similar examinations made on the money bills showed the presence of yellow fluorescent powder and the marking PCR 4/30/99 CABDO-NBI (Request for Ultraviolet Examination, and Certification from NBI Forensic Chemistry Division, Annexes "L" & "M").

    k) On 01 May 1999, a transmittal letter was forwarded to the Office of the Cabanatuan City Inquest Prosecutor recommending that Subject MAGDALENA MAGNO be prosecuted for the crime of Robbery/Extortion, defined and penalized under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code (Transmittal Letter, Annex "N")." (Emphasis ours)

    An Information for direct bribery against respondent Magdalena Magno was subsequently filed with the Regional Trial Court (Branch 36) of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, docketed as Criminal Case No. 8936. But the said court, in its order dated July 24, 2000, quashed the Information for lack of jurisdiction. The record of the instant administrative case does not contain further details on the progress of this criminal case.

    On September 21, 2000, respondent Magno filed her comment on the NBI Report. She denied the charge that she demanded and received from Leon Medestomas P4,000.00 as "grease money." She claimed that the amount was intended to be given to the sheriff to defray the latter’s expenses in the implementation of the writ of execution/demolition. She recalled that on April 21, 1999, Medestomas went to her office to inquire as to (1) who would implement the writ of demolition; and (2) the amount needed for its implementation. She informed Medestomas that she would ask the sheriff who is familiar with the expenses involved in the implementation of the writ. On April 23, 1999, she discussed the matter with Sheriffs Mendoza and Palor and they gave her a written estimate of expenses in the sum of P4,000.00. When Medestomas returned to her office on the last week of April, 1999, she gave him the sheriffs’ written estimate and told him that the money will be deposited with the MTC of Jaen and that any amount unspent will be returned to him as required under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court. On April 30, 1999, Medestomas went to her office again and deposited with the court P4,000.00 for the sheriffs’ expenses. She then counted the money in the presence of Medestomas inside her office and scribbled a temporary receipt for the amount. But when she was about to give the receipt to Medestomas, the latter hurriedly left. She called him, instructing him to get the receipt, but he ignored her. [This specific incident was allegedly witnessed by one Marcela Millar, a Staff Assistant in the office, who executed a sworn statement which forms part of her (Magno’s) defense.] Thereupon, Agents of the NBI then swarmed her office and took the record of the case of Medestomas, together with the P4,000.00 placed between the pages thereof. The NBI Agents arrested her and took her to the NBI office in Cabanatuan City where she was interrogated, fingerprinted and detained for three days.

    On the basis of the records, we find respondent Magno administratively liable for dishonesty.

    Leon Medestomas reported to the NBI that respondent demanded and received P4,000.00 from him as "grease money" in exchange for the implementation of the writ of demolition as ordered by the trial court. Medestomas further admitted that Magno made a threat that the writ of demolition would not be prepared and implemented unless he accede to her demand. Undoubtedly, this accusation against Magno is very serious. That he reported the incident to the NBI and engaged the legal services of Atty. Arsenio Reyes imply that Medestomas meant business and must have understood the implication and consequences of his bold act. His grave declaration that respondent asked "grease money" so that the writ of demolition would be implemented is certainly one which would besmirch her name and career. Indeed, Medestomas would not simply impute such wrong doing against respondent if there were no truth in it. If Medestomas’ declaration lacked sincerity and truth, his lawyer himself, as well as the NBI, would not have planned and pursued the entrapment. The NBI knew very well its job, and it would not have conducted an entrapment operation if it were not fully convinced of the veracity of Medestomas’ charge.

    We observe that respondent Magno’s comment on the NBI Report only strengthens the veracity of the extortion account. In her comment, she admitted that she asked and received P4,000.00 from Medestomas, but explained that the amount was intended as sheriff’s expenses for the implementation of the order of demolition, as required by Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Sec. 9. Sheriffs and other persons serving processes.

    x       x       x


    In addition to the fees herein above fixed, the party requesting the process of any court, preliminary, incidental, or final, shall pay the sheriff’s expenses in serving or executing the process, or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guard’s fees, warehousing and similar charges, in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerk of court and ex-oficio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process, subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process. Any unspent amount shall be returned to the party making the deposit. . . . ." (Emphasis ours)

    Let us examine the above-quoted provision if it jibes with respondent Magno’s explanation. The rule clearly requires that the party requesting the court process - which in this case is a writ of demolition - shall pay the sheriff’s expenses in the execution thereof, "in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court." The rule further requires that it is only" (u)pon approval of said estimated expenses" that "the interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerk of court and ex-oficio sheriff, who, shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process...."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the present case, respondent Magno claimed that she showed Leon Medestomas a written estimated expenses for the implementation of the writ of demolition prepared by the sheriffs in the amount of P4,000.00. This written estimate of expenses was not, however, confirmed by Medestomas. Magno further asserted that she prepared a receipt showing that the amount of P4,000.00 was paid to her by Medestomas, but she was not able to give it to him as he hurriedly left her office. Again, Medestomas did not confirm this allegation. We believe that the written estimate of expenses allegedly prepared by the sheriffs, as well as the receipt for P4,000.00 written by respondent, actually do not exist. These documents were NOT among those found by the NBI Agents immediately after the entrapment of respondent in her office. What the NBI Agents found in her possession were the marked money bills of P4,000.00 and the unsigned Writ of Demolition pertaining to Civil Case No. 2338, as stated in paragraph (f) of the NBI Report.

    But what is more revealing is the undisputed fact that respondent asked and received the P4,000.00 from Medestomas without obtaining the approval of the trial court. The provision of Section 9 is very clear that the amount of the sheriff’s expenses as approved by the court should be the amount which Medestomas shall deposit with the Clerk of Court.

    Respondent Magno’s utter failure to comply with the basic and simple requirements of Section 9 of Rule 141 definitely bolsters the veracity of Leon Medestomas’ accusation against her.

    We hold that respondent Magno’s questioned acts constitute dishonesty, a threat to the very existence of our justice system. Magno is an officer of the court and is called upon to serve its orders and writs and execute all its processes. As such, she is a part of the administration of justice and is required to live up to the strict standards of honesty and integrity in public service. Her conduct must at all times be characterized by honesty and must constantly be above suspicion. Any act, therefore, that tends to erode the faith of the people in the judiciary cannot be countenanced.

    We are convinced that the inculpatory acts committed by respondent Clerk of Court Magdalena Magno are so grave as to call for the most severe penalty. Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service. This penalty is in accordance with Sections 52 and 58, Rule IV of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 (Revised Uniform Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 (Revised Uniform Rules On Administrative Cases In The Civil Service), which provide:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "RULE IV. PENALTIES

    Section 52. Classification of Offenses. — Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.

    A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Dishonesty

    1st offense — Dismissal

    x       x       x


    Section 58. Administrative Disabilities Inherent in Certain Penalties.

    a. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it that of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service, unless otherwise provided in the decision."cralaw virtua1aw library

    WHEREFORE, respondent Clerk of Court Magdalena G. Magno is found GUILTY of dishonesty and is DISMISSED from office, with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government owned or controlled corporations.

    Let a copy of this Decision be attached to respondent’s records with this Court.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

    Vitug, J., on official leave.

    A.M. No. P-00-1419   October 17, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAGDALENA G. MAGNO


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED