March 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
A.M. No. P-06-2154 - Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 01-1217-P - ROBERT R. PASCUA v. ATTY. ANGEL P. BELTRAN ETC.
SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. NO. P-06-2154 : March 22, 2007]
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 01-1217-P)
ROBERT R. PASCUA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANGEL P. BELTRAN, CLERK OF COURT VI, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, TUGUEGARAO CITY, CAGAYAN, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
When Robert R. Pascua, a utility aide in the Office of the Clerk of Court in the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, discovered that he would not receive his productivity bonus because Atty. Angel P. Beltran, Clerk of Court VI, evaluated his performance as "unsatisfactory" for two consecutive semesters, July 1 to December 31, 2000, and January 1 to June 30, 2001, as reflected in the Performance Rating Form dated July 10, 2001,1 he filed an administrative case against Atty. Beltran. Pascua's Affidavit/Complaint2 dated October 7, 2001 charged Atty. Beltran with oppression and/or abuse of authority.
According to Pascua, Atty. Beltran could not have arrived at an objective, honest and impartial evaluation of his performance because the latter seldom reported for work and when he did, Atty. Beltran only stayed half a day before hurrying home to Sto. Niño, Cagayan where he lived. Pascua stated that this was the reason for Atty. Beltran's monicker, "Phd." for "palaging half day," or "Attorney Cash Bond," in reference to Atty. Beltran's reputation for demanding or extorting money from bondsmen or the accused.3
In addition, Pascua averred that during these half days, Atty. Beltran would often be seen playing mahjong; or attending to his family estate; or serving as director of the Veridiano Academy, all in Sto. Niño. Aside from these activities, Atty. Beltran, without filing the required leave of absence, would often go vacationing in Sampaloc, Manila, where he had another home.
In his Answer,4 Atty. Beltran denied all allegations and justified the "unsatisfactory" rating he gave to Pascua. He explained that other than wash coffee cups and teaspoons, Pascua had been remiss in his duties like dusting and cleaning the office. He added that Pascua was dishonest, uncooperative, and lacked initiative. He mentioned an incident when Pascua allegedly sold the newspapers subscribed to by a co-worker to buy alcohol, and another incident when Pascua surreptitiously entered in the logbook the filing of a motion that had been belatedly filed for which a memorandum was issued.
Atty. Beltran explained that he was often out of the office and perceived by Pascua to leave after lunch because unknown to the latter, he often had to rush before lunch to the Land Bank in Tuguegarao to beat the cut-off time for depositing checks received by the office; or accompany the sheriff on official errands. And again, as the accountable officer, it was part of his function to withdraw cash bond deposits from the Land Bank.
Atty. Beltran also averred he no longer played mahjong, denied involvement in the family estate as his siblings took care of this, and claimed he only went to Sto. Niño on weekends since he had a boarding house there.
Upon order of the Court,5 Judge Vilma T. Pauig investigated, reported and gave her recommendation on the matter.6 She found that although Atty. Beltran offered no evidence in his behalf, Pascua for his part, who carried the burden of proving his accusation of oppression and grave abuse in the evaluation of his performance, had not been able to substantiate his charges. Except for the affidavits of the Mayor, the Municipal Secretary of Sto. Niño, a teacher in Veridiano Academy, and the records of the sports activities of Atty. Beltran as Southwestern Cagayan Athletic Association Chairman, Pascua had not convincingly shown that Atty. Beltran's time had been occupied by activities other than his work as a government employee. According to Judge Pauig, the accusations of unreliability, unfairness and bias in the evaluation of Pascua's performance were not sufficiently proven by Pascua. Besides, the investigating judge said, the evaluation was up to Atty. Beltran's discretion which he justified in his Answer.
As to the affidavit and testimony of one witness, a certain Cesar Cabalza,7 Judge Pauig averred that these alone are inconclusive concerning the truth of the allegation that Atty. Beltran extorted money.
What Judge Pauig found strange was the manner Atty. Beltran accomplished the Performance Rating Forms. From her investigation, it appeared that Atty. Beltran asked the employees to sign blank forms without discussing nor informing them of the manner he arrived at the final ratings which he alone filled up. She noted that the inclusive rating period should cover only January 1 to June 30, 2001 and not include July 1 to December 31, 2000, as erroneously reported by an office clerk. Judge Pauig concluded that Atty. Beltran had been remiss in following the procedure for accomplishing the Performance Rating Forms. Atty. Beltran did not accomplish these in triplicate; did not have the concurrence of a higher supervisor; did not give one copy to the ratee; but worse, distributed blank forms among the employees, had the ratees sign them without his evaluation, point scores and his signature. Accordingly, Judge Pauig recommended that the appropriate penalties be imposed on Atty. Beltran.8
Upon evaluation of the investigation, report and recommendation of Judge Pauig, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with the findings of the investigating judge and recommended to this Court the following: (1) the charges of oppression and abuse of authority be dismissed; and (2) respondent Atty. Beltran be found guilty of simple neglect of duty which carries a penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months suspension.9
However, since Atty. Beltran had compulsorily retired, the OCA recommends instead, that a fine equivalent to one (1) month salary be imposed on Atty. Beltran, to be deducted from the P50,000 retained from his retirement benefits (A.M. No. 11864 Retirement dated April 25, 2005), the balance to be released to Atty. Beltran.10
We have gone over the records of this administrative case, and we find the investigation, report and recommendations of Judge Pauig and the OCA all in order. The manner in which Atty. Beltran accomplished the semestral Performance Rating Forms in the Office of the Clerk of Court is an indication of his cavalier attitude and his total lack of understanding of the seriousness of the required performance evaluation by the Court and the Civil Service Commission. Moreover, second-guessing the evaluation of the performance of an employee is a direct assault on the very core of what justice and fairness is all about.
The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel stresses that employees of the judiciary serve as sentinels of justice and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the judiciary and the people's confidence in it.11 This Court has recently spent millions in training, seminars and literature to uplift the professionalism of its employees, and cases, such as this one, put all its efforts to naught. The accusations of incompetence, bias, neglect of duty, extortion, and abuse of authority, by one employee against another, ought not to be taken lightly, for they not only put the Court in a bad light but undermine the whole efforts of the judiciary. We take this occasion to reiterate that the behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the clerk of lowest rank, should be circumscribed with a high degree of responsibility.12
WHEREFORE, the charges of oppression and abuse of authority filed against respondent Atty. Angel P. Beltran are DISMISSED for lack of sufficient evidence. Respondent is, however, found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty. We hereby ORDER that a fine equivalent to one (1) month salary be imposed on Atty. Beltran, to be deducted from the P50,000 retained from his retirement benefits (A.M. No. 11864 Retirement dated April 25, 2005), and the balance thereof to be released to him.
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, p. 4.
2 Id. at 2-3.
3 Id. at 3.
4 Id. at 9-11.
5 Id. at 69.
6 Id. at 126-171.
7 Id. at 174-187.
8 Id. at 162-171.
9 Id. at 208.
10 Id.
11 Concerned Employee v. Generoso, A.M. No. 2004-33-SC, August 24, 2005, 467 SCRA 614, 622.
12 Mataga v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1488, October 13, 2004, 440 SCRA 217, 223-224.
