Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > November 2007 Resolutions > [Adm. Matter No. MTJ-03-1508 [Formerly Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 01-11-307-MTCC] : November 12, 2007] RE: LOSS OF EXHIBITS IN THE MTCC OF CADIZ CITY (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. JUDGE ROLANDO V. RAMIREZ AND CLERK OF COURT SANDRA M. LEDESMA, MTCC, CADIZ CITY) :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 12 November 2007:

Adm. Matter No. MTJ-03-1508 [Formerly Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 01-11-307-MTCC] (Re: Loss of Exhibits in the MTCC of Cadiz City) (Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Rolando V. Ramirez and Clerk of Court Sandra M. Ledesma, MTCC, Cadiz City).�This concerns the letters dated 7 June 2005 by respondents, who, on 17 January 2005, had been found guilty by this Court of simple neglect of duty. In the aforementioned letters, respondents sought the reinvestigation of the matter, including the loss of exhibits for which they were held liable, and the reconsideration of the Court's Resolution dated 17January 2005. However, there were previous motions for reconsideration filed by respondents and they were denied in the Resolution dated 11 April 2005.

Nonetheless, through the Resolution dated 29 June 2005, the letters were referred to Investigating Executive Judge Renato B. Mu�ez, RTC, Cadiz City, for appropriate action. Said investigating judge submitted a sealed Compliance dated 28 October 2005 wherein he stated that the requested reinvestigation was no longer necessary in light of the clarifications he made in the Reinvestigation Report dated 10 January 2003 which both respondents accepted as satisfactory. The Court, on 23 January 2006, noted the Compliance.

Treating the subject letters collectively as another motion for reconsideration of our 17 January 2005 Resolution, we adopt and note with approval the explanations and findings made by the Investigating Executive Judge in his Compliance dated 28 October 2005, thus:

xxx

2. That prior thereto, on July 28, 2005, the undersigned likewise received the resolution of the Supreme Court, Second Division dated June 29, 2005, referring to the undersigned the Letters of respondents Judge Rolando V. Ramirez and Clerk of Court, Sandra M. Ledesma for APPROPRIATE ACTION, the alleged in accuracies in the Reinvestigation Report cited by both respondents which were allegedly used as basis for the 17 January 2005 Resolution of the Supreme Court, Second Division.

3. That on August 3, 2005, the undersigned invited respondents Judge Rolando V. Ramirez and Clerk of Court Sandra M. Ledesma for a conference where they showed to the undersigned their respective letters to the Honorable Chief Justice and inquired from both to point out their, perceived inaccuracies in the Reinvestigation Report of the undersigned dated January 16, 2003 and both expressed to the undersigned that their misgivings are all anchored in the use of the word "dilapidated" and the exact location of the "dilapidated" steel cabinet where the exhibits of the MTCC are stored and since these are the only issues raised by them, the undersigned allowed them to read the COMPLIANCE dated January 16, 2003 which contains the Reinvestigation Report submitted by the undersigned to the Supreme Court, Second Division how exactly the word "dilapidated" was used to describe the physical condition of the steel cabinet and explained to them the meaning as used in Webster's Dictionary it being an adjective and connotes to a thing which is in "structural disrepair" but which may still be usable yet is no longer in its original working condition such that as described even in the Motion for Reconsideration filed by both respondents before the Supreme Court, Second Division, both admitted that the said upright steel cabinet is an old one, secured merely by a chain and padlock and the robbers were able to open it by merely forcing open the left and right doors of the cabinet, to quote: "forcefully lifting the lowermost portion of the door (swinging door of the steel cabinet) and by pulling the SACK containing the firearms" (Rollo. Affidavit of Respondent Judge Ramirez, pars. 7 & 8, March 12. 2002, pp. 7 & 8). That it will be noted that the cabinet cannot be tightly and securely closed since there are no more handles and without the original lock to secure it tightly. After the clarification of the meaning and use of the word "dilapidated" having been taken from Webster's Dictionary and not through a synonym in the Thesaurus which merely enumerates words similar in import to it, the respondent Judge and Clerk of Court were satisfied that the use of the word "dilapidated" adequately describes the physical condition of the steel cabinet as being already "dilapidated."

As to the issue of the location of the dilapidated steel cabinet where the exhibits are kept, the undersigned pointed out in its Reinvestigation Report submitted to the Supreme Court, Second Division that its location is found in the STAFFROOM (where the public transacts their business with the Court) and not in the COURTROOM as mistakenly pointed out by both respondents (see page 3, Reinvestigation Report, 16 January 2003) and with this, both were also clarified of their mistaken notions and accepted that the Reinvestigation Report is a faithful, true and accurate report of the physical arrangement and physical condition of the upright steel cabinet where the sack containing the various exhibits were kept.

As can be gleaned from the Compliance, the pertinent findings for which respondents were held accountable remain the same as originally determined, their arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. The steel cabinet where the stored exhibits were lost suffered from "structural disrepair" as evidenced by the fact that it could no longer be tightly and securely closed because there were no more handles. Moreover, the chain and padlock could be forced open by merely prizing the left and right doors of the cabinet or by forcibly lifting the lowermost portion of the doors. Considering that the exhibits which were lost while in the custody of the respondents were firearms, the gravity of their negligence can hardly be excused.

In sum, the subject letters do not present any substantial matter.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, treating the subject letters of respondents collectively as a second motion for reconsideration, the same are DENIED with FINALITY. Let this ease be considered CLOSED and TERMINATED.