Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > November 2007 Resolutions > [A.M. No. 05-1-38-RTC : November 27, 2007] RE: INQUIRY INTO THE ANOMALIES ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY EDWIN V. GARROBO, SHERIFF IV, RTC, BRANCH 156, PASIG CITY:

Quoted hereunder; for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated November 27, 2007

A.M. No. 05-1-38-RTC (Re: Inquiry into the Anomalies Allegedly Committed by Edwin V. Garrobo, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 156, Pasig City). - This refers to the Investigation, Report and Recommendation of Justice Conrado M. Molina, Consultant, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), on the Letter-Complaint of Judge Alex L. Quiroz, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 156, Pasig City, against Assistant Court Administrator (ACA) Antonio H. Dujua for his alleged partiality/bias in favor of Edwin V. Garrobo, Sheriff IV, Branch 156, Pasig City, relative to the above administrative case.

For a backgrounder, this administrative case is an offshoot of the Special Order for a Writ of Execution, dated October 9, 2003, issued by Judge Quiroz in Civil Case No. 59264, entitled "Fruehauf Electronics, Phils., Inc. vs. Signetics Corporation, U.S.A.'" Sheriff Edwin V. Garrobo was designated to execute the writ against the defendant's local subsidiary, Philips Semiconductors Phils., Inc. (PSPI). During the implementation of the writ, Garrobo allegedly received bribe money from plaintiff Fruehauf, represented by its President, Mr. Antonio Litonjua, for which reason PSPI filed an administrative case (A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1893-RTJ)^[1] against Judge Alex L. Quiroz and Sheriffs Edwin V. Garrobo and Mario S. Pangilinan of RTC, Pasig City.^[2]

Disappointed with Garrobo's improper conduct, Judge Quiroz imposed disciplinary measures against him, i.e., restricting him from participating in auction sales, prohibiting him from leaving court premises except for official activities, and non-approval of leave applications save for justifiable reasons.^[3]

Garrobo took a long leave of absence and, on November 28, 2003, he wrote a letter to the OCA requesting a temporary detail to the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of RTC, Pasig City.

Judge Quiroz opposed the request for detail, raising the matter of Garrobo's AWOL status to the OCA. Said AWOL case was, in fact, elevated to the Court where the Supreme Court First Division found his absence unauthorized and unjustifiable and resolved to withhold his salaries and benefits (A.M. No. 04-3-158-RTC, May 17, 2004).

On July 20, 2004, Judge Quiroz was surprised to receive the letter^[4] dated July 13, 2004 signed by ACA Dujua and addressed to Atty. Grace S. Belvis of the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), RTC, Pasig City, informing the latter that the request of Garrobo for detail to the OCC, RTC, Pasig City, was approved for a period of one year effective upon notice.

Thus, in a letter^[5] dated November 16, 2004 addressed to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Judge Quiroz assailed ACA Dujua's "directive," alleging that: (1) it was issued without justifiable reasons/explanation; (2) it was premature, as the administrative case against Garrobo was still pending resolution; (3) it ran counter to the SC Resolution in A.M. No. 04-3-158-RTC withholding the salaries and benefits of Garrobo; and (4) the reassignment was done without prior consultation and approval of the other judges in case of disagreement and recommendation of the court employee's presiding judge in violation of Section 6 of A.M. No. 03-8-12-SC (on re-assignment of lower court personnel). Judge Quiroz further stated that he learned that Garrobo has a brother, Bong Garrobo, who holds the position of Executive Assistant in the office of Court of Appeals Justice Abdul Wajid. Said Bong Garrobo is a good friend of ACA Dujua and both are members of the so-called "Friday and Saturday Club." Judge Quiroz prayed that ACA Dujua be meted the proper sanctions and be made to inhibit himself from handling the inquiry regarding Garrobo's anomalies.

In his Comment,^[6] dated January 11, 2005, ACA Dujua averred the following: the letter-complaint should be dismissed for lack of factual and legal basis. In writing the letter to the OCC, RTC, Pasig City, he was merely implementing the Court's approval of the request for detail and was not solely responsible for it. The so-called "directive" does not run counter to the resolution in A.M. No. 04-3-158-RTC, because even if Garrobo would be reporting to the OCC, he still would not be receiving his salaries and benefits. On the reassignment of lower court personnel, ACA Dujua explained that Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor precisely followed the procedure laid down in Section 6, Chapter VII of the "Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of Executive Judges and Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties (A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC)." There was a disagreement on the requested reassignment, so the matter was referred to the OCA for resolution. ACA Dujua further stated that he does not know Bong Garrobo and also denies being a member of the so-called "Friday and Saturday Club." He then declared that he was voluntarily inhibiting himself from conducting the inquiry/investigation on Sheriff Edwin Garrobo and was recommending that the inquiry on the alleged anomalies be assigned to the Vice-Executive Judge instead. Finally, ACA Dujua advised Judge Quiroz to exercise close and effective supervision over his court personnel and to keep himself abreast with SC rules, resolutions and circulars relating to administrative supervision of lower courts.^[7]

In the Resolution dated July 19, 2005, the Court referred the matter to OCA Consultant Justice Conrado M. Molina. It was clarified that the investigation shall focus only on the complaint against ACA Dujua and not on the anomalies of Sheriff Garrobo.^[8] While the Court directed that the letter-complaint of Judge Quiroz against ACA Dujua be docketed as an administrative matter, the Court sees no more need to do so based on the Report of the OCA Consultant, Justice Molina.

Pursuant to the Court's directive, Justice Molina filed his Report with the recommendation that the charges of Judge Quiroz against ACA Dujua be dismissed for lack of merit. We quote:

Judge Quiroz adverts to the letter dated July 13, 2004 of ACA Dujua to Atty. Grace S. Belvis, Clerk of Court VII, RTC, OCC, Pasig City (Rollo, p. 90) as ACA Dujua's "directive" detailing Sheriff Garrobo to the OCC, RTC, Pasig City.

Judge Quiroz misreads the letter of ACA Dujua. The letter explicitly states that "on 12 July 2004, the Honorable Court (Supreme Court) approved the request of Mr. Edwin S. Garrobo x x x for temporary detail to the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, for a period of one (1) year effective upon notice."

Clearly, it was the Supreme Court that approved the detail of Mr. Garrobo, not ACA Dujua.

The aforesaid detail of Sheriff Garrobo was made not without previous study and evaluation by the Office of the Court Administrator. The request was first referred to then Executive Judge Jose Hernandez for appropriate action on December 8, 2003. When Judge Hernandez failed to act on the request, incumbent Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor was asked for information on the action taken on the subject. Judge Villasor replied by letter dated April 13, 2004, informing the OCA that Mr. Garrobo has not been reporting to Branch 156, RTC, Pasig City, that he was therefore "AWOL," that the matter has been referred to the Leave Division, OCA and that Mr. Garrobo was not reporting to the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Pasig City, either, per information given by the Clerk of Court, RTC, Atty. Grace S. Belvis (Memorandum, Rollo, pp. 91-93, at p. 91).

On April 19, 2004, another letter was sent to Judge Villasor informing that he had to act on the subject request in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 6, Chapter VII of the Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of Executive Judges and Defining their Powers, Prerogatives Duties as prescribed in the Resolution of the Supreme Court dated January 24, 2004 in Adm. Matter No. 03-8-02-SC. Judge Villasor forthwith submitted his report dated April 22, 2004.

On the basis of Judge Villasor's report, a MEMORANDUM dated June 1, 2004 was submitted to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (Rollo, pp. 91-93), apprising him of the situation obtaining in Judge Quiroz's court.

"It is undeniable that there exists a rift between Mr. Garrobo and Judge Quiroz. The continuous presence of Sheriff Garrobo in Branch 156 will only heighten the conflict between him and Judge Quiroz. This will only make their office unbearable thereby ultimately affecting the service."

The Memorandum concluded with the recommendation that:

"Mr. Garrobo's request for detail at the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Pasig City, be GRANTED for a period of one (1) year effective upon notice."

The MEMORANDUM (Rollo, pp. 91-93) was signed by then Court Administrator (now SC Associate Justice) Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., ACA Antonio H. Dujua, Atty. Caridad A. Pabello (O1C of the OCA, Office of Administrative Services) and Reynante L. Loyola, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the RTC Personnel Division.

The MEMORANDUM was approved by then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Justice Reynato S. Puno and Justice Jose C. Vitug as shown by their signatures/initials at the last page thereof (Rollo, p. 93).

Judge Quiroz misconstrues the effect of Mr. Garrobo's detail to the OCC, RTC, Pasig City on the Resolution of the Court's First Division to withhold the salaries and benefits of Mr. Garrobo "for non-submission of the daily time records (DTRs) from December 2003 to present" in A.M. No. 04-03-158-RTJ. Mr. Garrobo's aforementioned detail did not render nugatory the order suspending his salaries and benefits. Even if he reported for duty in the OCC, he still would not receive his salaries and benefits until he complied with the requirements of the Resolution in A.M. No. 04-3-158-RTC.

Per certification by the SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Leave Division, OAS, OCA, Mr. Edwin Garrobo reported for work in the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC Pasig City, only on July 27 and 30, 2004; he applied for sick leave of absence on July 27 and 29, 2004; and effective August 1, 2004, he was dropped from the rolls pursuant to the Resolution of the First Division, SC, m A.M. No. P-06-2159 dated April 19, 2006 (Rollo, p. 195). His salaries and other benefits for the period from July 2004 to December 2004, were withheld and cancelled by the Finance Division, FMO, OCA. (Rollo, p. 196).
 
Judge Quiroz's move to dispense with the investigation and submit the case for resolution on the basis of the documents and pleadings on record has left his charge of partiality of ACA Dujua to Sheriff Garrobo owing to the former's close friendship with the latter's brother Bong Garrobo, without evidence to stand on. To be sure, Judge Quiroz claims that this particular charge is "not a bare indictment or speculation"; that "No less than a very credible associate justice of the Court of Appeals has relayed that information to him"; and that should he be required to do so by the Honorable Supreme Court, "he is more than willing and able to participate in an executive meeting to be called for by the Court wherein he can divulge his source and further prove the truth of his allegation." (Letter dated February 1, 2005 of Judge Quiroz to the Chief Justice, Rollo, pp. 160-166, at pp. 164-165).

The investigation of his complaint ordered by the Supreme Court to be conducted by the undersigned was the opportunity for Judge Quiroz to substantiate his charge, rather than the "executive meeting" with the Court that he suggests. The investigation would be an open hearing wherein Judge Quiroz's witness or source of information could give his testimony subject to cross-examination by ACA Dujua.

As the records now stand, this charge of partiality is denied by ACA Dujua in this wise:

"The undersigned does not know the person whom Judge Quiroz refers to as ' Bong Garrobo.' The undersigned is also not a member of the so-called 'Friday and Saturday Club.'" (Rollo, p. 112).

This denial has not been overturned.

In fine, Judge Quiroz' charge of partiality against ACA Dujua is a mere allegation which does not warrant disciplinary sanction. Mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough (Barcena vs. Gingoyon, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1794, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 65, 74; Sinnott vs. Barte, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1453, December 14, 2001, 372 SCRA 282).^[9]

The findings and recommendation of Justice Molina are well-taken.

Clearly, the charges of Judge Quiroz against ACA Dujua for his alleged partiality in favor of Garrobo are without basis and need no longer be belabored. From the foregoing report, it is obvious that ACA Dujua did not really act on his own in granting the request for detail. He was merely implementing the Court's action on the matter, upon recommendation and after careful study by the OCA. The charges of bias and partiality are serious allegations. The complainant had the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. A finding thereon cannot simply be based on mere suspicion and conjecture. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the complainant to prove his charges by substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.10 Sadly, Judge Quiroz failed to do so.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the administrative complaint of Judge Alex L. Quiroz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 156, Pasig City, against Assistant Court Administrator Antonio H. Dujua is DISMISSED for lack of merit. This administrative matter is considered CLOSED AND TERMINATED.

Anent the above-entitled case, the OCA is DIRECTED to report to the Court on the status of the administrative case against Sheriff Edwin V. Garrobo within ten (10) days from notice hereof.

SO ORDERED.

C.J. Puno and J. Quisumbing, on official leave; J. Ynares-Santiago, Acting C.J.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 7.

^[2] In a Resolution dated July 6, 2004, the SC En Bane dismissed the complaint against Judge Quiroz for lack of merit and referred the complaint against the two sheriffs to the Executive Judge of RTC, Pasig City, for investigation, report, and recommendation.

^[3] Rollo, pp. 26-27.

^[4] Id. at 89.

^[5] Id. at 1.

^[6] Id. at 108-118.

^[7] Id. at 108- 118.

^[8] Resolution dated September 20, 2005; id. at 182.

^[9] Report and Recommendation, pp. 3-7.

^[10] Nedia v. Lavina, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1957, September 26, 2007, 471 SCRA 10, 20; Mercado v. Casida, 431 Phil. 243, 248 (2002); see Lambino v. Judge de Vera, 341 Phil. 62 (1997).