EN BANC.
.
MEDARDO M. PADUA,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-00-1445
April 30, 2003
-versus-
IRENEO S. PAZ, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF IV,
BRANCH 31, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, SAN PEDRO,
LAGUNA,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER
CURIAM:cralaw:red
Complainant Medardo
M. Padua charges Respondent Ireneo S. Paz, Sheriff IV of Branch 31 of
the
Regional Trial Court, San Pedro, Laguna, with grave misconduct,
falsification
of public document, perjury, giving false testimony, and abuse of
position
in connection with Civil Case No. 3225.[1]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 12 June 1997, a
Toyota Tamaraw wagon model 1994 bearing plate number TKU 319 belonging
to Medardo M. Padua ("complainant") figured in a traffic accident with
the vehicle of Ireneo S. Paz ("respondent sheriff"), a 1981 Ford Laser
bearing plate number DAL 334. Complainant’s 18-year old son Ryan
Niño
Padua ("Ryan Padua") was driving complainant’s vehicle at the time of
the
accident.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Police Officer Victoriano
A. Sabuco prepared a Traffic Accident Investigation Report[2]
("police report") shortly after completing the investigation of the
accident.
The police report stated that at the time of the accident Ryan Padua
possessed
a valid driver’s license with license number NO1-95-179337.[3]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant claimed
that after the traffic accident, he gave respondent sheriff his calling
card. This card supposedly contained the addresses and telephone
numbers
of both the complainant and his insurer, Covenant Assurance Company
("Covenant").[4]
Since respondent sheriff appeared satisfied with the arrangement,
complainant
believed the matter was amicably settled. Thus, complainant went his
own
way and so did respondent sheriff.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, on 26 November
1998, several armed men, including police officers, claiming to be from
the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Laguna, awakened complainant at
6:00 a.m. in his house. The men announced that they were enforcing a
writ
of execution issued by the Municipal Trial Court of Biñan,
Laguna
("Biñan MTC"). Complainant was able to convince the men from the
sheriff’s office to give him some time to clarify the matter, and so
the
men peacefully left the premises.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant soon discovered
the reason for the sheriffs’ surprise visit. He and his lawyer found
out
that on 30 June 1997 respondent sheriff filed with the Biñan MTC
a civil case for damages[5]
in connection with the traffic accident. The summons was allegedly sent
to complainant’s mother in Novaliches, where complainant previously
resided.
This, complainant claims, explains why he was not aware of the case
filed
against him until the sheriffs made their surprise visit. Complainant
was
declared in default for failing to file an answer within the
reglementary
period. Subsequently, there was an ex-parte presentation of evidence
before
a commissioner. Soon after this ex-parte hearing, Estanislao S. Belan
of
the Biñan MTC rendered a decision on 24 November 1997 in
respondent
sheriff’s favor. Complainant vigorously opposed the execution of this
decision
because of the alleged defective summons.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 18 December 1998,
complainant filed this administrative complaint against respondent
sheriff
for falsification of public document, perjury, giving false testimony
and
abuse of position.[6]
Complainant also asserted that under the current civil service rules,
respondent
sheriff did not possess the necessary qualifications to hold his
present
position.[7]
Complainant, moreover, stated that he resorted to all the means
available
to prevent the enforcement of an obviously unjust decision considering
the numerous false statements and misrepresentations made by respondent
sheriff.[8]
He narrated that he felt so aggrieved by the numerous attempts of the
sheriffs
of the Biñan MTC to enforce the writ of execution despite the
fact
that he had already gone to the courts to defend himself.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 25 March 1999, respondent
sheriff filed an Answer[10]
denying all of complainant’s material allegations. Respondent sheriff
contended
that he only filed the civil case for damages because complainant
failed
to honor his repeated promises that his insurer would pay for the
damage
to respondent sheriff’s vehicle.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 7 May 1999,
complainant
filed his Reply refuting respondent sheriff’s allegations in the Answer
and reiterating some of the allegations in his Complaint.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court, in the
Resolution
of 9 May 2001, assigned to Executive Judge Norberto Y. Geraldez[11]
("Investigating Judge Geraldez") this administrative complaint for
investigation,
report and recommendation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 6 November 2001,
the Court received the report and recommendations of Investigating
Judge
Geraldez. Some of Judge Geraldez’s findings included the following:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A. Medardo Padua
alleged some irregularities in the service of summons and copy of the
complaint.
Medardo Padua failed to present any evidence to prove the same. The
Traffic
Accident Investigation Report (Exhibit B) and Ryan Padua’s driver’s
license
(Exhibit K) showed that Ryan Niño Padua’s residence was at
Novaliches.
There was basis to serve the summons at Novaliches. His claim that
respondent
knew that he now lives in Las Piñas was not supported by
evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
B. Medardo Padua claimed
that Ireneo Paz gave a false statement in court. This was when Ireneo
Paz
testified that he went to Novaliches to talk to him. Medardo Padua
claimed
this was not true. There was no evidence to prove this.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
C. Medardo Padua claimed
that Ireneo Paz falsified the Traffic Accident Investigation Report
(Exhibit
B-1). In said Exhibit B-1 Ryan Padua’s age was 13. He presented the
same
as evidence before the MTC.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Medardo Padua presented
a copy of the same Traffic Accident Investigation Report (Exhibit B)
where
the age of Ryan Padua was 18 years old. Respondent did not file any
opposition
to the said Exhibit B. There was evidence to prove that Ireneo Paz may
have committed falsification of the Traffic Accident Investigation
Report
(Exhibit B-1).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is interesting to
note that Ryan Padua, as per his driver’s license (Exhibit K) and
Certification
from the Land Transportation Office (Exhibit K-1) was born on January
4,
1977. Therefore, Ryan Padua, at the time of the accident on June 12,
1997
was 20 years and 5 months old and not 13 or 18 years old.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D. Ireneo Paz in his
subscribed complaint for damages alleged that Ryan Padua had no
driver’s
license. Ireneo Paz knew the same was false as, as per Traffic Accident
Investigation Report (Exhibit B), Ryan Padua had a driver’s license.
And,
Ireneo Paz was well aware of this. There was evidence to show that
Ireneo
Paz may have committed perjury.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
E. Ireneo Paz testified
in court that he never filed a claim before the Covenant Insurance
Company
when there was evidence to prove that he had filed a claim with said
insurance
company and submitted documents (Exhibit H, H-1 to H-7). Ireneo Paz may
have given a false testimony.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Investigating Judge
Geraldez stated in his Resolution dated 5 November 2001, that:
As Ireneo Paz committed
grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public
service, it is respectfully recommended that said respondent be
dismissed
from the service with forfeiture of all benefits, and disqualification
to hold any public position in any branch or agency of the government
including
government-owned or controlled corporations.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon receipt of Investigating
Judge Geraldez’s findings and recommendations, the Court referred this
administrative case to the Office of the Court Administrator on 10
December
2001 for evaluation, report and recommendation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a careful evaluation
of the record of this case, the Office of the Court Administrator
("OCA")
agreed with the report of Investigating Judge Geraldez. The OCA
affirmed
in toto his recommendations and found them to be wholly supported by
evidence
and jurisprudence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The OCA recommended
that respondent sheriff Ireneo S. Paz be dismissed from the service
with
forfeiture of retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment
in
any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including
government-owned
or controlled corporations. Moreover, the OCA recommended that the case
be referred to the Department of Justice for investigation and filing,
if warranted, of the appropriate criminal case against complainant or
respondent
sheriff, or both.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court agrees with
the findings and conclusions of the OCA.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant first
imputes
to respondent sheriff the act of falsifying the police report
respondent
sheriff presented to the court. Respondent sheriff presented to the
Biñan
MTC a photocopy of the police report,[13]
showing that at the time of the traffic accident Ryan Padua was only
thirteen
years old, well below the statutory minimum age for driving, which is
eighteen
years. Respondent sheriff’s copy of the police report is marked as
Exhibit
"B-1" and is a certified true copy of the original. However, it was
Dahlia
E. Borromeo, the Clerk of Court of the Biñan MTC, who certified
it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To refute this piece
of evidence submitted by respondent sheriff, complainant presented a
different
copy of the same police report, duly marked as Exhibit "B." This copy
of
the police report was certified by Police Officer Victoriano A. Sabuco
of the Metro Traffic Force, Southern District Traffic Command, Pasay
City.
He was also the police officer who prepared the original document. This
copy submitted by complainant states that Ryan Padua’s age is eighteen
years old.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent sheriff
never filed any opposition to Exhibit "B." He never contested its
authenticity.
His silence may be construed as a tacit admission of the authenticity
of
Exhibit "B," and necessarily also a tacit admission that the police
report
he presented in court is a falsified copy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent sheriff stood
to benefit from having the police report reflect that Ryan Padua was an
underage driver, showing that Ryan Padua was at the time of the
accident
not qualified to drive a vehicle. As a father to a minor, complainant
would
also be liable for the negligent acts of his son that cause damage to
others.[14]
Thus, as found by Investigating Judge Geraldez, there is "evidence to
prove
that Ireneo Paz may have committed falsification of the Traffic
Accident
Investigation Report (‘Exhibit B-1’)," an act constituting grave
misconduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Another charge imputed
against respondent sheriff is the act of having committed perjury.
Perjury
is the deliberate making of untruthful statements upon any material
matter
before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in
which the law requires such oath.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There are four elements
that comprise the crime of perjury, namely: (a) the accused made a
statement
under oath on a material matter; (b) the statement was made before a
competent
officer, authorized to receive and administer oaths; (c) the accused
made
a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood in the statement and,
(d) the sworn statement containing the falsity is required by law or
made
for a legal purpose.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent sheriff in
his verified complaint for damages stated that Ryan Padua had no
driver’s
license on 12 June 1997, which was the date of the vehicular accident.
Respondent sheriff knew that this statement he made under oath was
false.
This conclusion is drawn from the fact that in respondent sheriff’s own
copy of the police report, at the time of the accident, Ryan Padua
possessed
license number NO1-95-179337. This information contained in respondent
sheriff’s copy of the police report completely contradicts the
statement
respondent sheriff made in his very own complaint. Respondent sheriff
cannot
merely feign ignorance of this detail which is material to his
complaint
for damages. Based on the evidence, all the requisite elements of the
act
of perjury exist. Clearly, respondent sheriff committed perjury in
filing
his verified complaint for damages, an act constituting grave
misconduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Another accusation complainant
makes against respondent sheriff is the act of giving false testimony.
Complainant cites respondent sheriff’s testimony in court that he never
filed a claim with complainant’s insurer, Covenant. Complainant,
however,
points out that respondent sheriff did file a claim with Covenant to
collect
on complainant’s admitted liability for his son’s part in the vehicular
accident.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 21 August 1997, in
an ex-parte hearing conducted before the Clerk of Court of the
Biñan
MTC, respondent sheriff stated under oath that he approached
complainant
to plead with him to pay the damages respondent sheriff incurred from
the
accident. However, complainant allegedly refused to pay the damages and
instead claimed that his insurance company would pay the damages. When
asked if respondent sheriff contacted this insurance company,
respondent
sheriff claimed he did not because complainant did not even mention to
him the insurance company that insured complainant’s car.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, ample evidence
exists on record to prove that respondent sheriff indeed had filed a
claim
with Covenant, contrary to the statement he made under oath. Respondent
sheriff submitted several documents to the insurance company, namely:
(1)
a Certificate of Registration;[17]
(2) an official receipt from the Land Transportation Office evidencing
payment of such registration;[18]
(3) a driver’s license;[19]
(4) a receipt[20]
from Imperial Insurance, Inc., evidencing payment of premium, which
receipt
is duly marked as received by Covenant; (5) a Private Car Policy[21]
issued by Imperial Insurance, Inc. in favor of one Ireneo Paz, also
marked
as received by Covenant; and (6) a detailed estimate[22]
issued by Cosmetic Car Care enumerating the various repairs needed on
respondent
sheriffs vehicle.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All these are some of
the requirements necessary prior to the filing of an insurance claim
with
Covenant. Respondent sheriff did contact Covenant and even filed a
claim
with Covenant for payment of the damage to his car, despite his sworn
testimony
to the contrary. Clearly, respondent sheriff gave false testimony in
the
ex-parte hearing, an act also constituting grave misconduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Court personnel charged
with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the
lowliest
clerk, bear a heavy responsibility in insuring that their conduct is
always
beyond reproach.[23]
The preservation of the integrity of the judicial process is of
paramount
importance. All those occupying offices in the judiciary should at all
times be aware that they are accountable to the people. They must serve
with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with
patriotism and justice and lead modest lives.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Indeed, all those involved
in the administration of justice must at all times conduct themselves
with
the highest degree of propriety and decorum and take utmost care in
avoiding
incidents that degrade the judiciary and diminish the respect and
regard
for the courts.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In grave misconduct,
there must be substantial evidence showing that the acts complained of
are corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or
constitute
flagrant disregard of well-known legal rules.[26]
Respondent sheriff’s introduction in evidence of the falsified police
report,
committing perjury and giving false testimony, are plainly corrupt acts
and show an intent to disregard flagrantly the law. They constitute
grave
misconduct that corrodes respect for the courts. Incidentally,
respondent
sheriff’s acts of perjury and of giving false testimony, which show a
predisposition
to lie, defraud and deceive, also constitute dishonesty.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The penalty for grave
misconduct is dismissal from the service,[28]
with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in
any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or
controlled
corporations.[29]
In Remolona v. Civil Service Commission,[30]
the Court En Banc ruled that, to warrant dismissal, grave misconduct or
dishonesty need not be committed in the course of performance of duty
by
the person charged. The Court explained the rationale for this rule, as
follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The rationale for the
rule is that if a government officer or employee is dishonest or is
guilty
of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of character
are
not connected with his office, they affect his right to continue in
office.
The Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official,
even
if he performs his duties correctly and well, because by reason of his
government position, he is given more and ample opportunity to commit
acts
of dishonesty against his fellow men, even against offices and entities
of the government other than the office where he is employed; and by
reason
of his office, he enjoys and possesses a certain influence and power
which
renders the victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty
less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts
and
actuations. The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from
his
public life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of the
officer
or employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the
service.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Public confidence in
our courts is vital to the effective functioning of the judiciary.
Court
personnel who commit misconduct or dishonesty diminish the faith of the
people in the judiciary’s ability to dispense justice.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent sheriff failed
to live up to the high ethical standards demanded by the office he
occupies.
By committing the questioned acts, respondent sheriff undermined the
integrity
of the service and jeopardized the public’s faith in the impartiality
of
the courts. Respondent sheriff, who is an important court personnel
because
he enforces judicial orders, debased the judicial process by
introducing
in evidence a falsified document, committing perjury and giving false
testimony
in an effort to obtain unfairly a favorable judgment for himself.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the Court
finds respondent Sheriff IV Ireneo S. Paz of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna, guilty of GRAVE MISCONDUCT. The Court
imposes
on him the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all
benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, with prejudice to
re-employment
in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned
or
controlled corporations.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let a copy of this decision
be attached to the personnel records of Ireneo S. Paz.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and
Azcuna,
JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Ireneo S. Paz v. Medardo M. Padua, filed with the Municipal Trial Court
of Biñan, Laguna
[2]
Rollo, Annex "A," p. 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Civil Case No. 3225 for Damages entitled "Ireneo S. Paz v. Medardo M.
Padua."
[6]
Rollo,p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Ibid., p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Ibid., p. 36.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Branch 36, Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Memorandum from the Office of the Court Administrator, 22 April 2002,
p.
7.
[13]
Exhibit "B-1," Rollo, p. 73.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Article 2180 of the Civil Code, cited in the Decision of 24 November
1997
penned by Judge Estanislao S. Belan of Biñan MTC, Rollo, p. 30.
[15]
Burgos v. Aquino, 319 Phil. 622 (1995).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
This particular statement is marked Exhibit "G," Rollo, pp. 18-19.
[17]
Exhibit "H-1," Rollo, p. 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Exhibit "H-2," Ibid., p. 25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Exhibit "H-3," Ibid., p. 26.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Exhibit "H-4," Ibid., p. 27.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Exhibit "H-5," Ibid., p. 28.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Exhibits "H-6" to "H-7," Ibid., pp. 33-34.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Montemayor v. Collado, 194 Phil. 246 (1981); Garcia v. Eullaran, A.M.
No.
P-89-327, 19 April 1991, 196 SCRA 1.
[24]
Lim-Arce v. Arce, A.M. No. P-89-312, 9 January 1992, 205 SCRA 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Security Division, Supreme Court v. Umpa, 326 Phil 698 (1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Amosco v. Magro, A.M. No. 439-MJ, 30 September 1976, 73 SCRA 107.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Tuazon v. Godoy, G.R. No. 146927, 10 December 2002; PAGCOR v.
Rilloroza,
G.R. No. 141141, 25 June 2001, 359 SCRA 525.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Section 52, Rule V, on Penalties of Civil Service Commission Memorandum
Circular No. 19-99 dated 14 September 1999 provides as
follows:
"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:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1.
Dishonestychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1st
offense - Dismissalchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2.
Gross Neglect of Dutychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1st
offense - Dismissalchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3.
Grave Misconduct chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1st
offense - Dismissalchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4.
Being Notoriously Undesirablechanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxx."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
See
also Supreme Court Memorandum Circular No. 30 dated 30 July 1989; Civil
Service Commission Resolution No. 89-506 dated 20 July 1989.
[29]
Ibay v. Virginia G. Lim, AM. No. 99-1309, 11 September 2000, 340 SCRA
107.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
G.R. No. 137473, 2 August 2001, 362 SCRA 304.; Nera v. Garcia, 106
Phil.
1031 (1960).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |