ChanRobles Virtual law Library

<[A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1694-P. <]

vs. BONDOC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 26 2004.

A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1694-P (Corazon F. Hernandez vs. Arturo S. Bondoc, Interpreter and Officer-in-Charge.)

RESOLUTION

Considering the Report dated March 2, 2004 submitted by Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., to wit:

On 27 June 2003, complainant filed a Compliant-Affidavit with annexes before this Office charging respondent with Falsification and Gross Misconduct relative to Criminal Case No. 52621-22 (I.S. No. LP 02-1724).

Complainant Corazon Hernandez avers that she is the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 51201, 52621 and 52622 for violation of Section 22 of Presidential Decree No. 692, otherwise known as the Revised Accountancy Law, raffled to Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 79.

Complainant charges respondent Arturo Bondoc for conspiring with the complainant in the criminal cases, Julia Matias, by issuing two (2) subpoenas dated 22 April 2003 and 18 June 2003 despite various notices (Motion to Investigate dated 26 March 2003, Urgent Motion to Resolve Investigation dated 13 May 2003 addressed to the City Prosecutor's Office of Las Piñas City) sent by the complainant.

The subpoena dated 22 April 2003 was contradictory to the Information filed in court which recommended a bail of P6,000.00 for each case without any warrant of arrest being issued by presiding Judge Arthur A. Famini of MTC of Las Piñas City, Branch 79.

During the scheduled hearing on 27 May 2003, the court's calendar for hearing was allegedly altered to read as:

Criminal Case Nos. 52621-22�������� People vs. Corazon Bautista

Summons��������������������������������������� For: Viol, of Sec. 22 of P.D. 692

As regards the subpoena dated 18 June 2003, the case was set for hearing on 25 July 2003 despite the absence of the City Prosecutor's Office resolution on the motion for reconsideration filed by the herein complainant in the said case.

On 09 June 2003, complainant received the resolution on the motion to investigate of the City Prosecutors Office and thereafter filed an administrative complaint against the Investigating Prosecutor Mario Mangrobang for alleged indecent acts and repeated notoriety for violation of due process.

Complainant herein did not agree with the foregoing Resolution of prosecutor Mangrobang which recommended that the remedy of the former in the said case is to file motion to suspend proceedings. Complainant asserts that respondent together with Prosecutor Mangrobang illegally denied her right to answer the Resolution in IS No. 02-1724. They should be the one to rectify their own error and answer directly the indorsement letter by the Department of Justice - as to what action was made at their end on the filed motion to investigate of the herein complainant.

On 10 July 2003, this Office, through 1st Indorsements, directed the respondent to comment on the charges brought against him.

Respondent denies as totally bereft of truth, baseless, malicious and misleading complainant's allegation that he conspired with private complainant Julia Matias in issuing the said two (2) subpoenas. The said subpoenas were legal and issued pursuant to his ministerial duty as OIC-Clerk of Court and after an order from the court itself.

Respondent contends that once an Information is filed in court whether by direct filing or though the Office of the Public Prosecutor, the court is duty bound to commence and try the case, fairly and expeditiously until its determination unless a suspension or leave of court is properly obtained by either party to the said case. The respondent asserts that complainant's averment that the information filed by the prosecutor's office is illegal is not enough to bar the subsequent action or proceeding to be undertaken by the court in the exercise of its function much less to declare it illegal.

The purpose of the word "summons" written below the case number was to serve as a reference for the judge in his determination of whether the accused on trial is either detained, bonded or summoned. This only appears in the court's calendar of case and never was the bail information in any way altered by the herein respondent. The change of name from Corazon Hernandez to Corazon Bautista was a typographical error which the herein complainant was seemingly aware of because of her affidavit-complaint where she readily admitted that the two persons are one and the same.

Respondent denies that Julia Matias is her personal friend or client. The fact is that the criminal case proceeded in favor of the herein complainant because a warrant of arrest was already in order and should have been issued, but the court did not release it in fairness to the herein complainant's lack of knowledge of the rules and law and not due to the reason that respondent conspired against the herein complainant.

EVALUATION: The instant complaint against the respondents for Falsification and Gross Misconduct should be dismissed for lack of merit. This Office finds the evidence submitted by the complainant insufficient to establish the charges against the respondent. In administrative cases, substantial evidence which is the amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required. The burden of proving the allegations in the complaint devolves upon the complainant. In the case at bar, complainant failed to effectively discharge this burden against the respondent. Besides, the respondent was able to refute the charges hurled against him.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with the facts and the law, the Court approves and adopts the same.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant administrative complaint against Arturo S. Bondoc is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA

Executive Officer

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE