ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. P-00-14-19.March 19, 2002]
OCAD vs. MAGNO
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 19 2002.
A.M. No. P-00-14-19(Office of the Court Administrator, complainant, vs. Magdalena G. Magno, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Jaen, Nueva Ecija, respondent.)
In a Decision dated October 17, 2001, this Court found respondent Magdalena G. Magno, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court of Jaen, Nueva Ecija, guilty of dishonesty for demanding and accepting P4,000.00 from Leon Medestomas, plaintiff in Civil Case No. 2338, as "grease" money for the implementation of the writ of execution/demolition issued in said case.Thus, she was dismissed from the service.
Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration of our Decision, respondent filed the instant Motion For Leave seeking the reopening of the present administrative case by allowing her to file an "answer" and "adduce additional evidence." She claims that: (a) "she thought she has not yet been administratively charged" since "it was a comment, not an answer, that was required of her in the En Banc Resolution dated August 29, 2000;" (b) "(t)here are vital circumstances which she overlooked and missed to mention in her comment, which if considered, would alter or modify the adverse judgment;" and (c) thus "she was denied due process" and "the right to be heard by counsel.
Respondent asks that her Answer, which she already appended in her motion, filed by her counsel Atty. Romeo A. Sadornas, be admitted.She alleged there that "(t)he complaint for dishonesty has absolutely no factual leg to stand on, as unmistakably shown by the following circumstance:"
1. Ernesto A. Mendoza and Renante Y. Palor both Sheriffs in the Regional Trial Court of Gapan City, stated in their joint-affidavits dated November 20, 2001 (Annex "1") that on April 23, 1999, respondent saw them in their office and inquired from them how much would be spent in the execution of a writ of demolition to be undertaken in Jaen, Nueva Ecija, and that on the same day, upon her request, they made an estimate of the costs of execution in writing (Annex "1-A") [1] cralaw and gave it to her to be shown to the party concerned.
2. Judge Tiburcio V. Empaynado, Jr., then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Jaen, Nueva Ecija (Retired), declared in his affidavit dated November 19, 2001 (Annex "2") that he remembered that in the last week of April, 1999, respondent informed him that the sheriffs' estimate of the expenses in the execution of the subject writ of demolition was P4,000.00.He further stated that respondent asked him "what to do in case he (Mr. Medestomas) should show up and already had the money for the demolition expenses" as she was expecting him to see her any day regarding the estimated expenses;" and that he "instructed her to refer the matter immediately to the incoming acting Judge" since he will be on terminal leave beginning May 3, 1999.
Respondent contends that it is "clear that the P4,000.00 given by Leon Medestomas to (her) was really for the estimated expenses to be incurred in the execution of the writ of demolition without any intent to pocket the same and not grease money as claimed by (him)."
We treat respondent's motion as one for reconsideration of our Decision.
The motion is not meritorious.
Respondent's claim that she thought she has not yet been administratively charged since she was merely required by this Court to "comment" and not to "answer" to the complaint against her, is preposterous.A reading of her comment, which consist of 10 pages with 8 documentary exhibits, reveal that she knew very well that she was facing an administrative charge.In fact, her comment contains an exhaustive statement of the "Facts of the Case," a full discussion of her denial of the charge, an "Offer of Evidence" consisting of Exhibits "A," "B," "C," "D," "E," "F," "G," and "H," and a prayer "(t)hat the case be dismissed for lack of evidence and that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt". In fact her Comment is more exhaustive than her Answer. [2] cralaw She adopted it as part of her Answer.
Verily, contrary to her claim, she was not denied due process.Nor was she deprived of the assistance of counsel.It bears stressing that the right to counsel under the Bill of rights in the Constitution applies only in a criminal case but not in an administrative investigation. [3] cralaw While investigators conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact remains that under existing laws, a party in administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent's capacity to represent himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person investigated with counsel. [4] cralaw The respondent has the option of engaging the services of counsel. [5] cralaw The right to counsel is not always important in administrative investigation because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit disciplinary measure against erring public officers and employees with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service. [6] cralaw
In any case, respondent anchors her defense on her posture that the P4,000.00 she received from Leon Medestomas was the estimated expenses to be incurred in the execution of the writ of demolition as suggested by the sheriffs.It was not "grease money".However, the paper submitted by respondent showing the sheriffs' estimate of such expenses (Annex "1-A," Answer or Annex "C," Comment) does not indicate the amount of P4,000.00.It merely states:
"ESTIMATED EXPENSE FOR THE EXECUTION OF
WRIT OF DEMOLITION
1. Transportation of Demolition Team P600.00 more or less within the 4 th District of Nueva Ecija;
2. Payment for each member of the demolition team at least P300.00 per day;
3. Food Allowance of P50.00 per day;
4. Medical expense/first aid allowance P50.00 each;
5. Other sundry expense/miscellaneous - depending on the situation e.g. expense (food and transportation) in securing police or military assistance.
The estimated expense for each case shall be subject to court approval.Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party making the deposit.A full report shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return and the sheriff expenses shall be taxed as cost against the judgment debtor (Rule 41, Revised Rules of Court)."
Thus, respondent's theory must fail.Besides, as we ruled in our Decision.
"x x x.The rule (Sec. 9, Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court) clearly requires that the party requesting the court process - which in this case is a writ of demolition - shall pay the sheriff's expenses in the execution thereof, "in an amount estimated by the sheriff's expenses in the execution thereof, "in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court." The rule further requires that it is only "(u)pon approval of said estimated expenses" that "the interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerk of court and ex-oficio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process....
"In the present case, respondent Magno claimed that she showed Leon Medestomas a written estimated expenses for the implementation of the writ of demolition prepared by the sheriffs in the amount of P4,000.00.This written estimate of expenses was not, however, confirmed by Medestomas.Magno further asserted that she prepared a receipt showing that the amount of P4,000.00 was paid to her by Medestomas, but she was not able to give it to him as he hurriedly left her office.Again, Medestomas did not confirm this allegation.We believe that the written estimate of expenses allegedly prepared by the sheriffs, as well as the receipt for P4,000.00 written by respondent, actually do not exist.These documents were NOT among those found by the NBI Agents immediately after the entrapment of respondent in her office.What the NBI Agents found in her possession were the marked money bills of P4,000.00 and the unsigned Writ of Demolition pertaining to Civil Case No. 2338, as states in paragraph (f) of the NBI Report.
"But what is more revealing is the undisputed fact that respondent asked and received the P4,000.00 from Medestomas without obtaining the approval of the trial court.The provision of Section 9 is very clear that the amount of the sheriff's expenses as approved by the court should be the amount which Medestomas shall deposit with the Clerk of Court.
"Respondent Magno's utter failure to comply with the basic and simple requirements of Section 9 of Rule 141 definitely bolster the veracity of Leon Medestomas' accusation against her.
xxx"
WHEREFORE , respondent's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.(Puno and Vitug, JJ., are abroad on official business)
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw This was already attached as Annex "C" in respondent's Comment previously filed in this case.
[2] cralaw Consist only of 5 pages with Annexes "1," "1-A" and "2".
[3] cralaw Remolona vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. 137473, August 2, 2001.
[4] cralaw Ibid..
[5] cralaw Ibid..
[6] cralaw Ibid..
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
