Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > October 1991 Decisions > Adm. Matter No. P-91-602 October 15, 1991 - RAYMUNDO Z. ANNANG v. TERESlTA GARAMPIL VDA. DE BLAS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[Adm. Matter No. P-91-602. October 15, 1991.]

JUDGE RAYMUNDO Z. ANNANG, Complainant, v. TERESlTA GARAMPIL VDA. DE BLAS, Staff Assistant II, MTC of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; CONDUCT OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE JUDICIARY; MUST BE CHARACTERIZED BY PROPRIETY AND DECORUM AND BE ABOVE SUSPICION. — The conduct and behavior of every one connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else must be above suspicion. Indeed, every employee of the judiciary should be example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.


R E S O L U T I O N


PER CURIAM:


On the basis of an unsworn letter-complaint, dated 24 April 1991, sent to him by Araceli M. Agustin, mother of an accused, Judge Emmanuel T. Leyno of the Municipal Trial Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, in a memorandum dated 24 April 1991, directed Mrs. Teresita Garampil Vda. de Blas, Staff Assistant II in said court, to explain within 72 hours why she should not be charged administratively for grave misconduct in office committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on March 25, 1991, upon learning that a warrant for the arrest of Melchor Agustin accused in Criminal Case No. 11516 for Assault Upon a Person in Authority has been issued by the Court you proceeded to the restaurant of the mother of the accused, Araceli Agustin, and demanded from her the sum of Eight Hundred Fifty Pesos (P850.00), purportedly to secure a personal bail bond for the provisional liberty of her son, Melchor Agustin, but one month has already elapsed up to this writing and despite the supplications of the mother for you to secure the necessary bond you failed to do so to the prejudice of the accused who was arrested and now languishing in jail per letter complaint and affidavit submitted by Mrs. Araceli Agustin, hereto attached.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

You are further reported to have beg (sic) the warrant officer not to implement the warrant of arrest till after you have raised sufficient money to cover the amount you have taken from Mrs. Agustin."cralaw virtua1aw library

Mrs. Blas received a copy of the above memorandum on 25 April 1991. For reasons only known to her, she did not file any explanation or answer.

By way of a 1st Memorandum dated 6 May 1991, Judge Leyno forwarded to Judge Raymundo Z. Annang, Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, at Guimba, Nueva Ecija, the letter-complaint of Mrs. Agustin and his aforesaid memorandum and further informed the Executive Judge that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"An inquiry from the complainant, Araceli Agustin on April 24, 1991, revealed that said Mrs. Blas appeared in her restaurant in Guimba, Nueva Ecija on March 25, 1991, and presented herself to be the person in charge of securing bail bond for the Court so that she entrusted to Mrs. Blas the sum of P850.00 for the purpose of securing the personal bail bond for her son Melchor Agustin accused in Criminal Case No. 11516 for the latter’s personal liberty. Accused was apprehended on April 17, 1991 and detained in the Municipal Jail.

An examination of PFC Bernardo de Guzman, warrant officer, revealed that he was prevailed upon by said Mrs. Blas to suspend momentarily the apprehension of the accused. This, on the assumption that she may be able to raise enough money to cover up what she has received. Mrs. Blas, however, up to this writing, has not secured the necessary bail bond for the provisional liberty of the accused Melchor Agustin."cralaw virtua1aw library

In a 4th Endorsement dated 15 May 1991, Executive Judge Annang referred to Mrs. Blas the basic letter of Mrs. Agustin and other pertinent documents for her comment/explanation within five (5) days from receipt thereof Mrs. Blas received them at 11:05 o’clock in the morning of 15 May 1991. Again, for reasons only known to her, she did not file any comment or explanation.

In his letter of 17 June 1991, addressed to the Honorable Chief Justice thru the Court Administrator, Executive Judge Annang, after reciting the foregoing facts, and more specifically the failure of Mrs. Blas to file a comment or explanation required in both the Memorandum of Judge Leyno and his aforesaid endorsement, concluded:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"For failure and refusal of Teresita G. Blas to give her side in this case, the undersigned found the complaint of Mrs. Araceli Agustin as meritorious.

The aforesaid act of respondent Teresita G. Blas constitutes not only a violation of law but serious and gross misconduct in office which is condemnable in any civilized society."cralaw virtua1aw library

and recommended that Teresita G. Blas be suspended from office for a period of two (2) months without pay, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.

The Office of the Court Administrator submitted this case for the consideration of the Court. We consider this case as one filed by the disciplining authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of Section 36 of the Civil Service Decree. 1 This forecloses any possible question which may be raised due to the failure of Mrs. Araceli Agustin to verify her letter-complaint.

As shown above, respondent employee chose to disregard the memorandum of Judge Leon and the endorsement of Executive Judge Annang which respectively directed her to show cause, within seventy-two hours, why she should not be administratively charged for grave misconduct, and to comment/explain, within five days, on the complaint of Mrs. Agustin. This conduct could only mean either indifference to and disregard of the authority of her superiors, or admission of the facts contained in the above-mentioned memorandum of Judge Leon and endorsement of Judge Annang.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The charges are serious and if these were unfounded or untrue, respondent would, undoubtedly, lose no time to refute the charge as her honor and her position in the government are at stake. Honor is a precious commodity and many would even risk their lives to defend it. One’s employment may be the only source of income to sustain a life worthy of human dignity, hence it would not be unnatural to protect it at all costs.

This Court considers then respondent’s deliberate failure to comply with the memorandum and the endorsement as waiver of her right to be heard or admission of the truth of the charges.

We do not hesitate to rule that respondent committed grave misconduct in office, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service when she solicited and received from Mrs. Agustin the sum of P850.00 allegedly to be used to secure the bail bond for the provisional liberty of Mrs. Agustin’s son, Melchor Agustin, under the pretext that she is the personnel of the court in charge of processing bail bonds; prevailed upon the warrant officer to defer or suspend the service of the warrant for the arrest of Melchor until she shall have secured the bond; and when she failed and refused to return to Mrs. Agustin the aforesaid sum. She must suffer the consequences therefor.

This Court had said before, and reiterates it here, as it has done in other cases, that the conduct and behavior of every one connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else must be above suspicion. 2 Indeed, every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. 3 In Sy v. Academia, Et Al., 4 this Court reiterates its strict policy on the conduct of officers and employees in the judiciary, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The administration of justice is a sacred task. By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, all those involved in it must faithfully adhere to, hold inviolate, and invigorate the principle solemnly enshrined in the 1987 Constitution that a public office is a public trust; and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, and act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives (Sec. 1, Art XI).

This Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and would diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary."cralaw virtua1aw library

Respondent does not deserve to stay a moment longer in the judiciary.chanrobles law library

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court resolved to DISMISS respondent Teresita Garampil Vda. de Blas, Staff Assistant II of the Municipal Trial Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, from the service for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of service of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. P.D. No. 807.

2. Jereos, Jr. v. Reblando, Sr., 71 SCRA 126.

3. Ablanida v. Intia, Adm. Matter No. R-770-P, 17 May 1988.

4. Adm. Matter No. P-87-72 and Adm. Matter No. P-90-481, 3 July 1991.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 89093 October 2, 1991 - POE MINING ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. CANCIO C. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96141 October 2, 1991 - EVANGELISTA GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53837 October 3, 1991 - FELIX PAINAGA v. NOLI MA. CORTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81567 October 3, 1991 - IN RE: ROBERTO UMIL, ET AL. v. FIDEL V. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85464 October 3, 1991 - DAVID P. LLORENTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 87184-85 October 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICHARD VIRAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88636 October 3, 1991 - LINA B. OCTAVIANO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89325-26 October 3, 1991 - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90739 October 3, 1991 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91162 October 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO F. CARAIG

  • G.R. No. 91271 October 3, 1991 - RESTITUTO P. RIZON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91626 October 3, 1991 - FRANKLIN DRILON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91716 October 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERINO T. CAMPOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95136 October 3, 1991 - RAFAEL BAYLOSIS, ET AL. v. APOLONIO R. CHAVEZ, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 90-474 October 4, 1991 - CLEMENCIO C. SABITSANA v. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-90-583 October 4, 1991 - MANOLO D. ADRIANO v. EUSTAQUIO P. STO. DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. 60714 October 4, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JAPAN AIR LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79004-08 October 4, 1991 - FRANKLIN BAGUIO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83697 October 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BENITEZ, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83720 October 4, 1991 - FELICITAS ENRIQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88233 October 4, 1991 - OSCAR NATIVIDAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91109 October 4, 1991 - SARKIES AND MOLAVE TOURS CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92646-47 October 4, 1991 - AUGUSTO TOLEDO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93300 October 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE BALLINAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93550 October 4, 1991 - SSFBWA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95026 October 4, 1991 - SPS. PEDRO and ANGELINA TELAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95625 October 4, 1991 - HIYAS SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95680 October 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO NGO

  • G.R. No. 82350 October 7, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC LONDOÑO

  • G.R. No. 93464 October 7, 1991 - REYMA BROKERAGE, INC. v. PHILIPPINE HOME ASS. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95582 October 7, 1991 - DANGWA TRANS. CO., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90745 October 10, 1991 - INTER-CAPITOL MARKETING CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93690 October 10, 1991 - ERECTORS, INCORPORATED v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97332 October 10, 1991 - SPS. JULIO D. VILLAMOR AND MARINA VILLAMOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97664 October 10, 1991 - OUANO ARRASTRE SERVICE, INC. v. PEARY G. ALEONAR, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 90-7-1159-MTC October 15, 1991 - IN RE: SOLICITATION OF DONATIONS BY JUDGE BENJAMIN H. VIRREY

  • Adm. Matter No. P-91-602 October 15, 1991 - RAYMUNDO Z. ANNANG v. TERESlTA GARAMPIL VDA. DE BLAS

  • Adm. Case No. 1424 October 15, 1991 - ISMAELA DIMAGIBA v. JOSE MONTALVO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 73504 October 15, 1991 - BALMAR FARMS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78781-82 October 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO RAVELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81093 October 15, 1991 - PORAC TRUCKING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85133 October 15, 1991 - FLORITA E. DALUYON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMM.

  • G.R. No. 86926 October 15, 1991 - CESAR E. A. VIRATA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90319 October 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO BRIONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 91363-73 October 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO VINAS

  • G.R. Nos. 92362-67 October 15, 1991 - CIRILO A. CINCO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92542 October 15, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ZENAIDA ELEPANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94677 October 15, 1991 - ORIGINAL DEV’T. AND CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95624 October 15, 1992

    DANTE G. BUGAYONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96535 October 15, 1991 - INOCENCIO PARI-AN, ET AL. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96859 October 15, 1991 - MOHAMMAD ALI DIMAPORO v. RAMON V. MITRA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96938 October 15, 1991 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97105 October 15, 1991 - ROSETTE YNIGUEZ LERIAS v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99031 October 15, 1991 - RODOLFO D. LLAMAS v. OSCAR ORBOS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1359 October 17, 1991 - GENEROSA BUTED, ET AL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. Nos. 79926-27 October 17, 1991 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC., ET AL. v. CITIBANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80747-48 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MERLO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 92241 October 17, 1991 - LILIA T. ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92447 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENERANDO NEBREJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92633 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR SADIA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96016 October 17, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96368-69 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERUBIEN Z. NABAYRA

  • G.R. No. 96713. October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO ARBOLANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98023 October 17, 1991 - MULTINATIONAL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45031 October 21, 1991 - NANERICO D. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50264 October 21, 1991 - IGNACIO WONG v. LUCAS D. CARPIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56487 October 21, 1991 - REYNALDA GATCHALIAN v. ARSENIO DELIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81756 October 21, 1991 - NICOMEDES SILVA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NEGROS ORIENTAL

  • G.R. No. 85176 October 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DENNIS MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83498 October 22, 1991 - SPS. MIGUEL S. JUANITA KHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 33438 October 28, 1991 - REPUBLIC RESOURCES AND DEV’T. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44712 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO L. SERRANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55393 October 28, 1991 - FAGEL TABIN AGRICULTURAL, CORP. v. EMILIO A. JACINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71562 October 28, 1991 - JOSE C. LAUREL V v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 74070-71 October 28, 1991 - SUNSHINE FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74197 October 28, 1991 - JOSEPHINE L. LUCERO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84730 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO GABATIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 88301 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN RAMOS, JR.

  • G.R. No. 93413 October 28, 1991 - EDWIN DEL CARMEN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94369 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO CO

  • G.R. No. 94521 October 28, 1991 - OLIVER O. LOZANO v. HAYDEE B. YORAC

  • G.R. No. 95631 October 28, 1991 - METALS ENGINEERING RESOURCES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98273 October 28, 1991 - CLARITA V. CRUZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100239 October 28, 1991 - BONIFACIO S. MACEDA, JR., ET AL. v. MOREMAN BUILDERS CO., INC., ET AL.