Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > January 2007 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-06-2117 : January 15, 2007] OLITO L. BASA V. MERCEDES C. CATAP, INTERPRETER, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, MAGALANG, PAMPANGA :

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 15 January 2007:


A.M. No. P-06-2117 (Olito L. Basa v. Mercedes C. Catap, Interpreter, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Magalang, Pampanga). - In a complaint dated April 4, 2005, Olito L. Basa charged Mercedes C. Catap with malversation of public funds, gross dishonesty and qualified estafa through falsification of public documents. According to complainant, respondent was accountable for the P29,000.00 shortage in court funds, which was found during the on-the-spot examination and audit conducted by the Commission on Audit sometime in October 2003. He further alleged that as Acting Clerk of Court, respondent misappropriated the 3 months' allowance intended for Judge Lourdes Gatbalite of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, and the gas allowance intended for the latter for the months of November and December 2003. The complainant pointed out that Judge Gatbalite retired on September 19, 2003. According to the complainant, respondent would affix the signature of Judge Gatbalite in the judge's honorarium.

In her Comment dated May 17, 2005, respondent explained that there was no such cash shortage, as she was still preparing her September 2003 report when the representatives from the COA came to the office and examined the records. The COA found that the September 2003 collections should have been deposited in the bank during the first week of October 2003. Respondent claims that she had deposited more than P30,000.00 in the bank on the same day. She further pointed out that the Third Division of this Court had already resolved the matter on March 28, 2005. She insisted that she had no participation in the inclusion of Judge Gatbalite's name in the November-December 2003 payroll. She added that the name of the judge should have been written ahead of the names of the municipal judges, prosecutors, and PAO lawyers but was surprisingly written last and "out of column." Attached to the complaint-affidavit were copies of the following: letter of Municipal Judge Ma. Magdalena A. Balderama addressed to Mrs. Myrna J. Ocampo, Asst. Treasurer, Mabalacat, Pampanga, requesting for a certified true copy of the January payroll of judges; Allotment Obligation Slip; the payroll list for November 1-30, 2002, the payroll list for December 2003; and a certification of Executive Judge Berndardita Gabitan-Erum, RTC, Branch 61, Angeles City, stating that Judge Gatbalite had compulsorily retired from the service effective September 19, 2003.

In a Resolution^[1] dated February 13, 2006, the Court resolved to assign the instant case to Judge Ma. Magdalena A. Balderama, MCTC, Mabalacat, Pampanga, for investigation, report, and recommendation. According to the complainant, he filed the complaint on the information and the documents given to him by the Municipal Hall employees. He admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the allegations in the complaint.

In her Investigation Report dated June 16, 2006, Judge Balderama found that it was respondent who prepared the November and December 2003 payrolls; she was also the one who brought the money to the judges in Angeles City. However, as admitted by a legislative staff officer of the Mabalacat Sangguniang Bayan, she was the one who added the name of Judge Gatbalite in the payroll and signed for the Judge. Considering this admission of the witness, the Investigating Judge found that the evidence against respondent was substantially insufficient to declare her administratively liable for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service. The findings and conclusions of the Investigating Judge are as follows:

It would seem clear from the foregoing allegations of Myrna S. Ocampo, Ms. Ethel O. Sanchez and Mercedes Catap including the documents adduced that the P2,000.00 monthly allowance that the local government of Mabalacat, Pampanga, gives to judges of Angeles City, public prosecutors and PAO lawyer assigned in the MCTC of Mabalacat are being disbursed by the office of the Municipal Treasurer of x x x Mabalacat, Pampanga through its Assistant Treasurer Ms. Myrna S. Ocampo upon the presentment to her [of] the corresponding payroll of those entitled to it. Mercedes Catap, acting clerk of court at the time was in [charge of] preparing the payroll. She gives the payroll she prepares to Ms. Ethel Sanchez, a legislative staff officer of the Sangguniang Bayan who, in [turn] submits it to the Assistant Treasurer Myrna Ocampo, who will release the money to her (Ethel Sanchez). Then, the money depending upon the number of judges and the number of public prosecutors and PAO lawyer entitled to it at the rate of P2,000.00 a month, is delivered to Mercedes Catap who is responsible [for] distributing this money to the officers concerned[,] including the judges in Angeles City.

The issue cropped up after the retirement of the Honorable Lourdes Gatbalite of Br. 56, RTC, Angeles City, on September 19, 2003. Gatbalite's name was included in the payroll in the allowance of judges of Mabalacat, Pampanga, for its succeeding months of November and December 2003, whereby the sum of P4,000.00 corresponding to two months was disbursed by the Assistant Treasurer of Mabalacat for the already retired Judge Gatbalite.

The undisputed facts showed that before Judge Gatbalite's retirement on September 19, 2003, there were eleven (11) officers who received allowance of P2,000.00 a month from the local government of Mabalacat, Pampanga, x x x

Complainant Olito Basa posits that Mercedes C. Catap willfully included Judge Gatbalite's name in the payroll for the months of November and December, 2003 despite her knowledge that Judge Gatbalite already retired from the service on September 19, 2003. Complainant further avers that after falsifying the signature of Judge Gatbalite in the payroll, Mercedes Catap has misappropriated the sum of P4,000.00 to her personal use and benefit.

There is no gainsaying that it was Mercedes Catap who personally brought to Angeles City the P2,000.00 monthly allowance of judges for the months of November and December, 2003. Scant comfort can be derived from the fact that Mercedes Catap was no longer the designated acting clerk of court of MCTC Mabalacat at the time when the questioned payrolls were prepared. Her denial that she could no longer deliver the said allowance of judges to Angeles City because she was no longer the acting clerk of court at that time is negated by the declaration of Judge Omar T. Viola, Court Legal Researcher Socorro F. Garces, and Court Stenographer Elena D. Carlos through their certification and affidavit, respectively, which are attached to the records, that it was still Mercedes Catap who gave to the judges their allowance for the months of November and December 2003. From this established fact, the only natural and inevitable conclusion that this court may validly deduce therefrom is that there could be no other person or persons who could prepare the questioned payroll for November and December 2003, except Mercedes Catap because she used to prepare it and it was she who used to bring the money to Angeles City to give [the] judges' allowance. But this is not the point here. The pivotal questions addressed to this court for determination are: 1) Did Ms. Catap falsify the questioned payroll by intercalating Judge Lourdes Gatbalite's name x x x? 2) Did Ms. Catap falsify the signature of Judge Gatbalite in the payroll by making it appear that Judge Gatbalite received the money corresponding to the amount stated therein? and 3) Did Ms. Catap misappropriate the P4,000.00 referred to in the questioned payrolls for her personal use and benefit?

While this court finds it was Ms. Mercedes Catap who prepared the questioned payrolls for November and December, 2003 and who brought money to the judges in Angeles City for their allowance, x x x of significant importance that emerged during the investigation held in this case is the admission of Ms. Ethel Sanchez, a legislative staff officer of the Mabalacat Sangguniang Bayan, that it was she who added the name of Judge Gatbalite in both the November and December 2003 payroll and her admission that it was she who falsified the supposed signature of Judge Gatbalite opposite her name x x x. Forthwith, the only rational hypothesis that can be drawn therefrom must be that it was Ms. Sanchez who was guilty thereof. x x x

The contention of Ms. Sanchez that she gave this amount to Ms. Catap is self-serving in the absence of corroborative evidence and therefore cannot be given due credence against Ms. Catap. As a matter of fact, in one occasion when Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Catap discussed this problem with Mayor Morales after the issue on the matter came out, Ms. Sanchez admitted before Mayor Morales that x x x [the] P4,000.00 was in her possession. Suffice it to state that in this connection, that evidence against Ms. Mercedes Catap is substantially insufficient to pronounce her [administratively] guilty x x x for the offenses of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service.

The Office of the Court Administrator, for its part, agrees with the recommendation of the Investigating Judge.

It is a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint. Bare allegations, surmises, suspicions and rhetorics will not suffice.^[2] The evidence presented should be competent and derived from direct knowledge,^[3] and charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.^[4] Thus, between an unsubstantiated charge of misconduct with no cogent proof thereon, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, it is the latter that shall prevail.

The Court resolves to DISMISS the charges against Mercedes C. Catap for lack of merit.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 31.

^[2] Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Legaspi, 453 Phil. 459, 464 (2003).

^[3] Sierra v. Tiamson, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1847, July 21, 2004, 434 SCRA 560, 563.

^[4] See Lambino v. De Vera, 341 Phil. 62 (1997).