ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. P-04-1882.� July 18, 2005]
PASCUAL vs. ALVAREZ
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 18 2005 .
A.M. No. P-04-1882 (Antonio N. Pascual vs. Banaag Alvarez, Clerk of Court, MeTC-Branch 80, Muntinlupa City.)
In a Resolution dated September 30, 2004 rendered in the above-entitled case, the Court found respondent Alvarez guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and Discourtesy for which respondent was suspended for one month and one day, and reprimanded, respectively. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, respondent Banaag Alvarez, Clerk of Court, MeTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 80, is SUSPENDED for one month and one day without pay for Simple Neglect of Duty, and REPRIMANDED for Discourtesy in the course of official duties, with warning that a repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal record of respondent Alvarez.
Meanwhile, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), in coordination with the Insurance Commission, is DIRECTED to conduct a thorough investigation on the genuineness of the bail bonds issued by Phil. Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc. for the accused Evangeline Torregoza and Baby Sereno in Criminal Cases Nos. 34819-34821 pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City (MeTC), Branch 80, determine the parties liable therefor, and submit its recommendations thereon within three (3) months from receipt of a copy of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED. [1] cralaw
In view of the foregoing resolution, the Finance Division of the Court ordered the refund of respondent's mid-year bonus and cash gift overpayment, and his cost of living allowance (JDF) withheld, pursuant to Budget Circular No. 2000-18 dated September 6, 2000, and Administrative Circular No. 5-2001 dated January 9, 2001.
Respondent thus filed the present motion for reconsideration on the following grounds:
1. LAPSE OF REASONABLE TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT.
2. THE FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATING EXECUTIVE JUDGE WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF THE CASE. [2] cralaw
Respondent argues, among others, that laches barred complainant from assailing the alleged acts complained of, as it took complainant three years and six months to initiate the case against him.
Respondent also filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration seeking the reinstatement of the monetary benefits withdrawn from him.
The Court finds no cogent reason to grant respondent's motions.
For one, respondent raised the issue of laches only in his motion for reconsideration. Nowhere in his comment did respondent argue such issue. Consequently, respondent cannot now be heard on such point.
For another, even if such issue was raised, the Court finds that complainant is not estopped from filing the case against him. Laches has been defined as the failure of or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, or to assert a right within reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto has either abandoned it or declined to assert it. [3] cralaw In this case, the Court finds that a lapse of three years is not an unreasonable delay such that complainant is barred from pursuing his complaint against respondent. In fact, administrative offenses do not prescribe, [4] cralaw and complainant may even file the case any time he chooses to so long as there is no showing of ill motive or malice on his part.
With regard to the other issue raised by respondent, i.e., that the findings of the Investigating Executive Judge were not supported by facts and evidence of the case, the Court finds the same to be without merit.
When the issue is the credibility of witnesses, the function of evaluating it is primarily lodged in the investigating judge. The rule which concedes due respect, and even finality, to the assessment of credibility of witnesses by trial judges in civil and criminal cases where preponderance of evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt, respectively, are required, applies a fortiori in administrative cases where the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence. The investigating judge is in a better position to pass judgment on the credibility of witnesses, having personally heard them when they testified and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. The evaluation of the testimony of witnesses by the trial judge is accorded the highest respect on appeal because the court below had the opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and detect if they were telling the truth. This assessment is binding upon the appellate court in the absence of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or that the trial court plainly overlooked certain facts of substance or value that, if considered, might affect the result of the case. We find no reason to depart from this rule. [5] cralaw
Lastly, with regard to the reinstatement of respondent's monetary benefits, respondent admitted, "he is not in a position to question the wisdom of the provisions of the Budget Circular No. 2000-18 and Administrative Circular No. 5-2001." Nevertheless, respondent laments that said circulars are "very inconsiderate and lack equal protection for government employees particularly court employees." [6] cralaw
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5-2001 provides for the rules and regulation on the payment of Productivity Incentive Benefit, Fringe Benefits (Amelioration Assistance), and Additional Cost of Living Allowance from the Judiciary Development Fund. Said circular contains similar provisions on cases not covered by the grant of these benefits, i.e., those who have been found guilty of an administrative charge except those who have been reprimanded or warned, shall not be entitled to the productivity incentive benefit, [7] cralaw fringe benefits, [8] cralaw and the additional cost of living allowance from the JDF. [9] cralaw
On the other hand, Budget Circular No. 2000-18, in part, provides:
3.0����������� Exemptions
All government personnel under the following instances as of October 31 of each year shall not be entitled to the benefits authorized herein:
3.4��������� Those who are formally charged administrative cases as well as criminal cases which relate to acts of omissions in connection with their official duties and functions and found guilty and/or meted penalties shall not be entitled to the benefits authorized herein in the year the decision was handed down.
3.4.1��� In this regard if the penalty meted out is only a reprimand, such penalty is not one that can be made the basis of disqualification to receive the said benefits.
Given the presumptive validity of these circulars, the Court can only reiterate its fundamental duty to apply the law regardless of who may be affected, even if the law is harsh - dura lex sed lex. [10] cralaw
WHEREFORE, respondent's motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration are DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp.209-210.
[2] cralaw Id., p. 211.
[3] cralaw Juco vs. Chung Fu, G.R. No. 150233, February 16, 2005.
[4] cralaw Heck vs. Santos, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, February 23, 2004, 423 SCRA 329; Floria vs. Sunga, A.M. No. CA-01-10-P, November 14, 2001, 368 SCRA 551.
[5] cralaw Meneses vs. Zaragoza, A.M. No. P-04-1768, February 11, 2004, 422 SCRA 434, 441.
[6] cralaw Rollo, p. 249.
[7] cralaw Section 5, Part I.
[8] cralaw Section 5, Part II.
[9] cralaw Section 5, Part III.
[10] cralaw Reyes vs. CA, G.R. No. 94524, September 10, 1998, 295 SCRA 296.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
