ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2291-RTJ. September 20, 2006]
SPOUSES RAOUL AND JULIETA VILLAREAL v. JUDGE ARTURO M. BERNARDO, LEGAL RESEARCHER IRISSA G. MUSNGI AND UTILITY WORKER MA. ROSA L. DE GUZMAN, RTC, BRANCH 36, GAPAN CITY, NUEVA ECIJA
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 20, 2006 .
A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2291-RTJ (Spouses Raoul and Julieta Villareal v. Judge Arturo M. Bernardo, Legal Researcher Irissa G. Musngi and Utility Worker Ma. Rosa L. De Guzman, RTC, Branch 36, Gapan City, Nueva Ecija.)
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:
In their VERIFIED COMPLAINT, Sps. Villareal charged respondent Judge Bernardo with Grave or Serious Misconduct in Office, Manifest Bias and Partiality, Conduct Unbecoming a Judicial Officer. Manifest Delay in deciding a case, Falsification of Time Cards and Unexplained Wealth. They charged respondent Musngi as co-conspirator in the charge of Falsification of Time Cards and Unexplained Wealth while they charged respondent De Guzman with Falsification of Time Cards.
Complainants stated that they are the parents of Christopher A. Villareal, the protestant in Election Protest No. 11-04 entitled "Christopher Villareal v. Sonia R. Lorenzo" which is pending before respondent Judge's sala. They alleged that respondent Judge showed his undue interest in the above-entitled case when he took cognizance of the same without raffle. In support, they attached the affidavit of Joselito Baguisa.
They further alleged that respondent Judge always started his scheduled 2:00 p.m. court sessions at 2:30 or 2:40 p.m., obviously to accommodate the late arrival of protestee's counsel, Atty. Jose Ventura Aspiras. Respondent would cancel hearings if such counsel is not available. Such conduct is unbecoming a judicial officer. Moreover, respondent showed undue leniency towards the numerous tardiness that was absences of said counsel. They averred that on 25 April 2005, the hearing begun in the absence of Atty. Aspiras. During the session, a court employee entered and told him that "May tawag po si Atty. Aspiras ", respondent Judge recessed the session to answer the phone call and when he resumed session, he announced that Atty. Aspiras called and said that he could not attend the hearing. A copy of the TSN on said date was attached in the complaint, pertinent portion was quoted, to wit:
Court:� What do you say?
Atty. [Alfredo] Villamor (Protestant's Counsel): Well today is the presentation of protestee's evidence, your Honor.
Court:� That is true, but don't you think that we have to rule on your offer of evidence first. Now, what do you say about this comment.
Atty. Villamor:� Well your Honor, for one regarding the ---
Court:� You are submitting it now?
Atty. Villamor:� Yes, your Honor, we want to have it submitted first. As I understand it, your Honor, once the comment on our formal offer is filed, it is deemed submitted for resolution.
Court:� Submitted. So Atty. Villamor, the records--- There is a phone call from Atty. Aspiras
RECESS:�������
SESSION RESUMED:���������
Court:� According to Atty. Aspiras, he cannot come to attend the hearing today on time, what do you say Atty. Villamor?
xxx������ xxx������ xxx
Complainants claimed that respondent Judge took protestee in chambers alone. This took place during the hearing on 13 May 2005. They alleged that complainant Julieta Villareal saw respondent judge nod to the protestee, Sonia R. Lorenzo, after which he rose and went to his chamber, protestee immediately followed him. After a few minutes, both of them came out to the chamber together.
They also alleged the respondent judge edited the TSNs to favor protestee. During one hearing, respondent judge sternly prohibited protestant's counsel from operating a voice tape recorder. Complainant Julieta Villareal was present at that time.
Complainants also questioned respondent Judge's act of fixing excessive bail for the release of complainant Raoul Villareal. He was cited for direct contempt of court on 12 May 2005, for complaining to the OIC Branch Clerk of Court about the simultaneous absence of all court stenographers, which caused the postponement of the scheduled hearing. They argued that respondent judge was not even present when the exchange of words transpired, as he was inside his chambers. Notwithstanding the fact the scheduled hearing could not be held due to the absence of the all the stenographers, respondent still found complainant Raoul Villaruel guilty of direct contempt of court for supposedly obstructing the proceedings, though there were none, and sentenced him to the maximum penalty allowed by law of ten (10) days imprisonment and to pay the fine of Two Thousand Pesos. He even fixed the bail in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos.
They also averred that respondent is guilty of delay in deciding a case because despite the requirement that an election protest must be heard within a period of not more than six months after its filing and decided within thirty days from submission, the case is still being heard lackadaisically. In fact, the same is still in the stage of presentation of the protestee's evidence.
As regards the charges against respondent Musngi and De Guzman regarding the falsification of time cards, complainants alleged that respondent Musngi habitually reports for work late and leaves the office early. Respondent De Guzman would punch respondent Musngi's time card. When confronted, she replied "Wala akong magagawa . Utos ng boss ko ". By "boss" she meant respondent Judge and respondent Musngi. In support, complainant attached the affidavit of Joselito Baguisa.
Lastly, regarding the unexplained wealth, complainants alleged that respondent Judge drives a 2004 model Mitsubishi Pajero when he goes to court. The vehicle is registered in his name. He also owns a Toyota Corolla and a Nissan Pick-up Truck.
Respondent Musngi drives a Toyota Vios when she reports for work and the same is registered in her name. She also owns a Toyota Corolla.
Complainants asserted that both of them should be investigated for ostentatious display of unexplained wealth. They ask how respondents could afford the monthly payments for their vehicles using their lawful income as government employees.
In his COMMENT dated 22 July 2005, respondent judge vehemently denied the charges against him. He contended that he had no prior dealings with the protestant and his assignment was determined through a regular raffle attended by all the four presiding judges of the RTC, Gapan City. The allegation that he had undue interest in the case was based on the affidavit of one Joselito Baguisa, who works for the complainant spouses.
As regards the charge of habitual tardiness in the commencement of court sessions, respondent Judge argued that counsels are given some consideration as far as coming to court on time is concerned. Such however is not countenanced. He added that complainants only mentioned one instance of tardiness of counsels.
Respondent Judge also denied that he brought protestee in his chambers alone. He contended that no one in his right mind would do so in open court and in full view of the public.
Respondent denied editing of TSNs and argued that the TSNs are duly certified correct by the assigned stenographer. Errors that a party discovers are corrected by a proper motion. He added that no motion for correction was ever filed by protestant's counsel. Moreover, the use of a voice tape recorder was allowed in order to avoid unnecessary arguments that would obstruct the proceedings.
As regards the charge of fixing of excessive bail, respondent argued that bond, not a bail was required so that complainant would abide by and perform his obligation should his petition for certiorari or prohibition be decided against him. It is not the bail bond covered in the 1996 Bailbond Guide for the National Prosecution Service. It was more in the nature of a performance bond. It was misleading to claim that the same was for the release of complainant Villareal as he was not in custody.
The allegation regarding the delay in deciding the election protest was denied. He contended that records would show that he continuously heard the election case from the time it was raffled to his sala. At times, respondent had to preside over the presentation of up to five witnesses per hearing, terminating as much as possible their testimonies on the same date. There were times when the case was heard for five (5) straight days of the week, taking all the afternoon calendar of the court. The reception of protestee's evidence was terminated on 20 June 2005. The protestant was even allowed to present, although, belatedly after having previously waived his right to do so and only in the higher interest of justice, testimonial evidence last 29 June 2005, after which the parties were given thirty days to submit their memoranda. Thereafter, the protest would be deemed submitted for resolution. Respondent judge emphasized that as of filing of his comment, the thirty day period within which to render judgment on the election case has not even begun to toll.
He denied the allegation of falsification of time cards. He noted that the basis of the allegation was the affidavit of their witness stating that he observed the arrival and departure of respondent Musngi's car, not of Ms. Musngi herself. He admitted that he certified Musngi's attendance on the basis of her time registered by bundy clock or her card and based also on the Log Book where the employees are required to simultaneously record their attendance as registered in the time card.
Lastly, respondent explained that he owned the Mitsubishi Pajero. The same was bought on installment. He used the proceeds of the sale of his previous vehicle as downpayment and the balance was paid thru the help of his children in the U.S. and his wife. The Toyota Corolla is owned by his wife and the Toyota Pick-up is owned by his daughter's client. He used the said vehicles because there were times when other members of his family would borrow his vehicle.
In her Comment dated 25 July 2005, respondent Musngi denied the charges against her. She argued that the charge of falsification of time card was fabricated. Affiant Joselito Baguisa indicated in his notes that she reported for work on 25 February 2005 at 9:45 a.m., while the truth is that she did not report for work on that day because it was declared to be a non-working holiday. He also indicated that on 4 March 2005, respondent reported for work at 9:30 a.m., while in truth, she was at the Supreme Court on official business.
As regards the charge of unexplained wealth, she stated that she is single, she has no dependent and she lives in their ancestral house with his younger brother who is engaged in his own business. Her mother and other siblings live abroad. She bought the vehicle on installment. She was able to pay the down payment with the help of her siblings. The balance was financed by China Bank payable in 36 equal monthly amortization. Her sister owned the other vehicle. It was brought to respondent because her sister was recuperating from the trauma she experienced when she figured in an accident driving said car.
In her AFFIDAVIT dated 25 July 2005, respondent De Guzman denied the charge of falsification. She argued that it would be useless to do so because each personnel is required to sign in a log book. Moreover, it was impossible for affiant Baguisa to observe what takes place inside their office because he was outside, while the bundy clock was located inside their office.
In her LETTER to the Chief Justice dated 27 January 2006, complainant Raoul Villareal alleged that more than six months has elapsed and they have not received any comment from any of the respondents. He opposed the application of respondent Judge for the position as Executive Judge of RTC Gapan City alleging that he is guilty of graft and corrupt practices, extorting money from litigants, surety companies and local executives whose offices are within his jurisdiction. In support, he attached copies of affidavit-complaints executed by Alex Manuel and Merlita Labadan Harvey, which were filed against respondent with the Office of the Court Administrator attesting to such graft and corrupt practices of respondent judge.
OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION: It must be noted that the affidavit-complaints mentioned by the complainant in his Letter dated 27 January 2006 were docketed as Administrative Matter No. 05-2289 RTJ entitled "Alex B. Manuel vs. Judge Arturo M. Bernardo" for Direct Bribery and Administrative Matter No. 05-2290 RTJ entitled "Merlita Labadan Harvey v. Judge Arturo M. Bernardo" for Direct Bribery. However, these complaints were dismissed on November 14, 2005 and January 16, 2006, respectively.
EVALUATION: The more serious charges against the respondent judge have already been tackled and dealt with in the administrative matters just mentioned. Upon the other hand, the allegations as regards raffle of the case, habitual tardiness, editing of the TSN's, delay in the election case and the ownership of a Pajero have been sufficiently rebutted and explained.
Anent the charges against the two court personnels, complainant failed to substantiate their claims. The affidavit of Joselito Baguisa is insufficient to prove the administrative liability of the respondents; the same applies to the attendance sheet prepared by him.
It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of substantiating the charges asseverated in the complaint falls on the complainant. The allegations in the complaint must be proven by substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his or her duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him or her should be competent and derived from personal knowledge. Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence. (Steve Lui v. Gerardo M. Daroy, AM OCA IPI No. 05-2245-P)
Thus it has been ruled in the case of Josephine Sarmineto v. Abert Salamat, A.M. No. P-01-1501, 4 September 2001, 364 SCRA 301 which was reiterated in the recent case of Vicente Dela Cruz, et al. v. Expedito Bato, et al., AM. No. P-05-1959, 15 February 2005, to wit: Let it be known that this Court will never tolerate and condone any conduct, act or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability or diminish the people's faith in the judiciary. However, when an administrative charge against our personnel holds no basis whatsoever in fact or in law, this Court will not hesitate to protect the innocent court employee against any groundless accusation that trifles with judicial processes. As a final note, this Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees of the judiciary but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather that promote the orderly administration of justice.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of this Court is our recommendation that the complaint against respondent Judge Arturo M. Bernardo, Legal Researcher Irissa G. Musngi and Utility Worker Ma. Rosa L. De Guzman be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.
This Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees of the judiciary, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. [1] cralaw
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Arturo M. Bernardo, Legal Researcher Irissa G. Musngi and Utility Worker Ma. Rosa L. De Guzman is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Sarmiento v. Salamat , 416 Phil. 684, 695 (2001).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
