EN BANC
EXECUTIVE JUDGE
LEANDRO
T. LOYAO, JR.,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-02-1599
April 30, 2003
-versus-
MAMERTO J. CAUBE,
CLERK OF COURT IIAND RICARDO
B.
QUISADIO,
COURT INTERPRETER II,BRANCH 1, MTC,
MAASIN,
SOUTHERN LEYTE,
Respondents.
R E S O L U T I
O N
PER
CURIAM:
On April 15, 1998,
Executive Judge Leandro T. Loyao, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of
Maasin,
Southern Leyte, Branch 24, directed Judge Ramon P. Velasco of the
Municipal
Trial Court, Maasin, Southern Leyte, to conduct an investigation on the
complaint for Grave Misconduct in Office and Usurpation of Judicial
Functions
against respondents Mamerto J. Caube, Clerk of Court II, and Ricardo B.
Quisadio, Court Interpreter, both of the Municipal Trial Court of
Maasin.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The complaint was filed
by twenty public school teachers of Manhilo National High School,[1]
five employees of the Integrated Provincial Health Office[2]
and one employee of DPWH Area Equipment, Ibarra, all in Maasin,
Southern
Leyte.[3]
They alleged that respondent Caube issued subpoenas directing them to
appear
before his office for a conference to settle their financial
obligations
to Ester Servacio, owner of the Maasin Traders Lending Corporation. The
subpoenas were signed by respondent Caube, purportedly on the authority
of the Presiding Judge Sulpicio D. Cunanan, Acting Municipal Judge of
the
Municipal Trial Court of Maasin. Despite the fact that they were not
parties
to any civil or criminal cases, complainants appeared before respondent
Caube’s office, where they met with Servacio and eventually reached a
settlement
of the latter’s claims. Respondent Caube drew the necessary compromise
agreement, wherein the complainants agreed to pay the amount of P
12,000.00
each to Servacio on or before 30 April 1998, otherwise, formal
complaints
may be instituted against them.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The complainants argued
that the respondent Caube had no authority to issue court processes
against
them since they were not involved in any lawsuit. Moreover, the fact of
being subpoenaed and required to appear before the court was traumatic
to them. They also alleged that respondent Caube colleced from them the
amount of P500.00 as attorney’s fees for his services in preparing the
amicable settlement.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, the
complainants charged respondent Ricardo B. Quisado of collecting on
behalf
of Mrs. Epifania P. Entuna the account due from her debtor, Mrs.
Felicisima
M. Bacala.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
During the investigation,
respondent Caube admitted that, in his capacity as clerk of court, he
issued
on separate dates subpoenas to the complaining witnesses to appear
before
his office for an amicable settlement with Mrs. Ester Servacio. He,
however,
denied having demanded from the complainants the amount of P500.00 as
attorney’s
fees. Rather, the attorney’s fees were intended for the reimbursement
of
Mrs. Servacio’s expenses including consultation fees she paid to her
legal
counsel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After the investigation,
Judge Velasco submitted the following recommendations:[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1.
Issue a WARNING to respondent MAMERTO J. CAUBE for his indiscretion on
the issuance of court process (subpoena) to non-litigated cases before
the court with a FOREWARNING that a repetition of such highly irregular
and anomalous acts shall merit a more punitive sanction, to include
SUSPENSION
AND/OR DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2.
As for respondent RICARDO B. QUISADIO, the records and evidences on
hand
are bereft of any substantial merits that least show by preponderance
that
act complained of was committed, is hereby recommended DISMISSED for
want
of merits factually.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Judge Loyao, however,
disagreed with the foregoing factual findings and recommended
sanctions.
In his Report to the Office of the Court Administrator, he found
respondents
Caube and Quisadio guilty of Gross Misconduct on three counts and one
count,
respectively, and recommended that respondent Caube be dismissed from
the
service and respondent Quisadio be suspended for such length of time as
this Court may impose.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While the proceedings
were ongoing, respondent Caube filed a request for retirement effective
April 1, 1999 pending the resolution of the administrative case against
him, retaining whatever such amount as will answer for any penalty that
may be imposed on him.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 26, 2001, while
the motion was pending resolution, respondent Caube died at the Chung
Hua
Hospital in Cebu City.[7]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a Resolution dated
June 16, 2002,[8]
it was resolved to dismiss for lack of merit the charges against Court
Interpreter Ricardo B. Quisadio; docket the case as a regular
administrative
proceeding as regards Clerk of Court Mamerto J. Caube; grant Clerk of
Court
Caube’s request to be allowed to retire pending the resolution of the
administrative
case; and direct the Financial Management Office, OCA, to withhold the
sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) from Mamerto J. Caube’s
retirement
benefits pending the resolution of the administrative complaint against
him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The death or retirement
of any judicial officer from the service does not preclude the finding
of any administrative liability to which he shall still be answerable.[9]
As pointed out in Gallo v. Cordero:[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This jurisdiction that
was ours at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was
not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had
ceased
in office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains its
jurisdiction
either to pronounce the respondent public official innocent of the
charges
or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with
injustice
and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications.If
innocent,
respondent public official merits vindication of his name and integrity
as he leaves the government which he has served well and faithfully; if
guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty
proper and imposable under the situation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We find the penalty
recommended by Judge Velasco too light a sanction for the act
complained
of. Considering the gravity of his offense, we find the recommendation
of Judge Loyao that respondent be dismissed from the service to be
well-taken.
Clearly, he was guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the
service.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A clerk of court is
an essential and a ranking officer of our judicial system who performs
delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper
administration
of justice.[11]
A clerk of court’s office is the nucleus of activities, adjudicative
and
administrative[12]
performing, among others, the functions of keeping the records and
seal,
issuing processes, entering judgments and orders and giving upon
request,
certified copies from the records.[13]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Owing to the delicate
position occupied by clerks of court in the judicial system, they are
required
to be persons of competence, honesty and probity since they are
specifically
imbued with the mandate of safeguarding the integrity of the court and
its proceedings, to earn and preserve respect therefor, to maintain
loyalty
thereto and to the judge as superior officer, to maintain the
authenticity
and correctness of court records and to uphold the confidence of the
public
in the administration of justice.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent’s performance
of the functions of a collection agent for a moneylender; his use of
court
processes and resources; and his act of deputizing the local police to
serve subpoenas on the complainant-debtors under the guise of a court
proceeding
captioned, "Amicable Settlement," constitutes a gross disservice to the
judiciary.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent Caube is
an accountable officer entrusted with great responsibility. As an
officer
of the court, respondent was obliged to conduct himself with propriety
and restraint. He cannot make use of his public office to oppress or to
browbeat people into paying their debts by resorting to such arbitrary
and highhanded tactics. He is expected to be a role model[15]
for other court employees - to be emulated in the performance of his
duties
as well as in his conduct as a civil servant.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Regrettably, respondent
abused the trust and confidence reposed upon him. In his findings,
Judge
Velasco described the acts of respondent as "procedurally and
substantially
anomalous and irregular"[17]
which "partakes of usurpation of judicial functions and abuse of
discretion,
the same being done with full knowledge that it has prejudiced the
interests
of the government by non-payment of fees due and likewise a mockery of
the established procedural system to seek judicial reliefs."[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Misconduct is defined
as any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the
administration
of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right
determination
of the cause.[19]
It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by
a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.[20]
The term, however, does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal
intent.[21]
On the other hand, the term "gross" connotes something "out of all
measure;
beyond allowance; not to be excused; flagrant; shameful."[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To be sure, respondent
Caube’s death has permanently foreclosed the prosecution of any other
actions,
be it criminal or civil, against him for his malfeasance in office. We
are, however, not precluded from imposing the appropriate
administrative
sanctions against him.[23]
Respondent’s misconduct is so grave as to merit his dismissal from the
service, were it not for his untimely demise during the pendency of
these
proceedings. However, since the penalty can no longer be carried out,
this
case is now declared closed and terminated.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ACCORDINGLY, based on
all the foregoing, this administrative matter is CLOSED AND TERMINATED
in view of the death of respondent Clerk of Court Mamerto J. Caube.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and
Azcuna,
JJ.,
concur. Quisumbing,
J.,
on leave.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Mrs. Elenita Casepe, Ms. Nanette Ingracial, Ms. Rebecca Gimo, Ms. Myrna
Geraldo, Mr. Isidro Tomon, Ms. Macrina Aparejo, Ms. Anacorita Arbol,
Ms.
Imelda Nacorda, Mr. Felixberto "Boy Gregana, Mrs. Maria Tomon, Ms.
Venancia
Sas, Ms. Virginia Orais, Ms. Petronia Maglines, Ms. Merlinda Markines,
Ms. Delia Gaviola, Ms. Teresita Siega, Ms. Sofia Florendo, Mr. Eric
Munda,
Mr. Antonio Duazo and Mr. Eusebio Faelnar.
[2]
Mr. Pastor Telin, Mr. Manuel L. Orais, Mr. Silverio G. Cadavos, Mr.
Joel
A. Canabe and Mrs. Dionesia L. Florendo.
[3]
Mr. Manuel Orais.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 26-100.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., p. 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Rollo, Vol. II, p. 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., p. 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., p. 55.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Lilia v. Judge Bartolome M. Fanuñal, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1503, 13
December
2001, p. 4.
[10]
315 Phil. 210 [1995].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branches 29 and
59, Toledo City, 354 Phil. 8 [1998], citing Juntilla v. Calleja, A.M.
No.
P-96-1225, 23 September 1996, 262 SCRA 291.
[12]
Basco v. Gregorio, 315 Phil. 681 [1995].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
CA v. Escalante, A.M. No. P-96-1219, 15 August 1997, 277 SCRA 331,
citing
Angeles v. Bantug, A.M. No. P-89-295, 29 May 1992, 209 SCRA 413 and
Juntilla
v. Calleja, supra.
[14]
Marasigan v. Buena, 348 Phil. 1 [1998].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Paa v. Remigio, A.M. No. P-1641, 28 February 1979, 88 SCRA 593.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Mallare v. Ferry, A.M. Nos. P-00-1381-82, 31 July 2001, 362 SCRA 19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Investigation Report, p. 15; Rollo, Vol. I, p. 44.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id., pp. 13-14; Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 42-43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth ed., p. 1150.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Words and Phrases, Vol. 27, p. 466, citing Sewell v. Sharp, La App.,
102
So 2d 259, 261.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id., citing State Ex Rel Asbaugh v. Bahr, 40 N.E. 2d 677, 680, 68 Ohio
App. 308.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Black’ Law Dictionary, Fourth Ed., p. 832.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
OCA v. Saguyo, A.M. No. P-26-1229-30, 25 March 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Apiag v. Cantero, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1070, 12 February 1997, 268 SCRA 47,
64.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |