ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1992-P.� July 4, 2005]
PUNSAL vs. MARQUEZ
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 4 2005 .
Adm. Matter OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1992-P (Jose R. Punsal vs. Rodolfo F. Marquez, Sr., Legal Researcher.)
For consideration is the Report [1] cralaw dated 22 April 2005 submitted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
On 07 July 2004, Jose R. Punsal filed a sworn complaint [2] cralaw charging respondent Rodolfo F. Marquez, Sr., Legal Researcher II, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, with Violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019). Complainant is the son-in-law of the respondent. He claims that despite respondent's meager salary as Court Legal Researcher II, he was able to acquire several real and personal properties, including parcels of land, houses, a mansion even, and several vehicles. [3] cralaw Complainant alleges that respondent favors some litigants by researching and drafting decisions in their favor in exchange for cash, but the presiding judge of the branch where respondent works has no knowledge of his activities. [4] cralaw
In his comment [5] cralaw dated 07 October 2004, respondent states that complainant had previously filed a similar complaint [6] cralaw against him, docketed as OCA IPI No. 97-309-P, which the Court dismissed on 23 August 1999 for lack of merit. [7] cralaw He explains that the earlier complaint was filed when complainant and his wife, respondent's daughter, had separated. When the couple reconciled, complainant voluntarily executed an affidavit of desistance. Respondent claims that the instant complaint is false and baseless, and merely filed to ruin his reputation and to exact revenge upon complainant's wife from whom he is once more separated. [8] cralaw
Respondent disputes complainant's allegations as to his unexplained wealth, explaining that his only real property is his lot over which his house was constructed through various loans. The other real estate referred to by complainant is not his, but acquired by one of his daughters who works overseas. He adds that contrary to complainant's allegation, he only owns a second-hand car. [9] cralaw
Respondent asserts that in his thirty-seven years of government service, he has never asked or demanded any favor or monetary consideration from any litigant. He prays that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. [10] cralaw
In reply to respondent's comment, [11] cralaw complainant invites the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to investigate the background of the respondent, claiming that respondent was engaged in shady dealings even before his present post in Branch 37, RTC, Sto.Domingo, Nueva Ecija. [12] cralaw He admits that he moved for the dismissal of the first complaint because his wife requested him to withdraw the same, and because of respondent's undertaking that he would no longer interfere with their family. [13] cralaw However, respondent is not worthy of his desistance since he continued to interfere with his family, causing his separation from his wife once more, who is now working in London. Complainant states that despite the decision of the RTC and the Court of Appeals to provide him and his children support, his wife refused to do so, whereas his in-laws, respondent and his wife, continued to receive support. [14] cralaw
Respondent's rejoinder [15] cralaw points out that complainant's reply exposed his resentment and ill feelings against him, blaming him for the breakdown of his marriage, and trying to get even with him through the filing of the instant complaint. [16] cralaw
The OCA recommends the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. It found that there was nothing administratively actionable as the complainant failed to present credible evidence to support his already inadequate allegations. Respondent, on the other hand, provided satisfactory comment and convincing proof to establish his assertions. The present charges are as false and frivolous as the first complaint filed against respondent, and seem to have been instituted merely to harass respondent. [17] cralaw
Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against respondent Legal Researcher Rodolfo F. Marquez, Sr. is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 71-75.
[2] cralaw Id. at 2-4.
[3] cralaw Id. at 2-3, pictures of said properties were attached as Annexes, id. at 5-8.
[4] cralaw Id. at 3.
[5] cralaw Id. at 13-18.
[6] cralaw Id. at 19-21.
[7] cralaw Id. at 27.
[8] cralaw Id. at 14.
[9] cralaw Id. at 15-16.
[10] cralaw Id. at 16-17.
[11] cralaw Id. at 59-62.
[12] cralaw Id. at 60.
[13] cralaw Id. at 60.
[14] cralaw Id. at 60-61.
[15] cralaw Id. at 63-64.
[16] cralaw Id. at 64.
[17] cralaw Id. at 74-75.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
