Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > April 2009 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-06-2255 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2445-P) : April 15, 2009] MITZIE CATRAL V. MARCEL F. CATRAL, CLERK OF COURT III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC) BRANCH 4, TUGUEGARAO CITY :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 15 April 2009:

A.M. No. P-06-2255 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2445-P) - Mitzie Catral v. Marcel F. Catral, Clerk of Court III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Branch 4, Tuguegarao City


RESOLUTION


Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

This pertains to the Court's Resolution of December 3,2008 referring the Report dated October 7, 2008 of Investigating Judge Jesusa L. Carag, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Solana-Enrile, Cagayan, to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation within thirty (30) days from notice.

This administrative matter stemmed from the verified Letter-complaint dated May 5,2006 filed by Mitzie B. Catral charging respondent Marcel F. Catral, Clerk of Court III, MTCC, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, with Immorality.

Complainant averred that she is the wife of the respondent. She added that four (4) of their children, with ages 20, 18, 15 and 9, are all studying- three (3) are in college and one (1) in elementary level. In February 2005, respondent left the conjugal home leaving her with the burden of sending their children to school. This prompted the complainant to asked [sic] respondent for financial support of P10,000.00 per month. Respondent, however, refused. Worst, respondent's paramour sent complainant insulting and demeaning text messages with the knowledge and consent of the respondent.

Respondent in his comment dated July 14, 2006, denied that he left the conjugal home and that he stopped supporting their children. Respondent likewise denied that he have [sic] a mistress. According to the respondent, complainant filed this complaint out of her unreasonable jealousy. In any event, respondent did not deny having normal domestic spats with complainant mostly arising from financial difficulties. To avoid trouble especially in the presence of their children, respondent claimed that he would just leave his verbally abusive and repetitive spouse and proceed to the ancestral house in [sic] his parents which is about ten (10) meters from their conjugal home.

In the Court's resolution of March 17,2008, this administrative matter was referred to Judge Jesusa Carag, MCTC, Solana-Enrile, Cagayan for investigation, report and recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of records. On May 16, 2008, however, complainant submitted before Judge Carag the Affidavit dated May 14,2008 requesting for the dismissal of the case against the respondent and asking apology to the Court for hastily filing this administrative complaint.

In her affidavit, she averred that economic difficulties, intrigues from peers and acquaintances and pressures of having growing children were the sources of verbal clashes between her and the respondent. She now realized that to avoid confrontations, respondent would normally go to their ancestral house or air his frustrations that respondent is having an extra-marital affair with another woman. She was informed that the text messages she was receiving were actually from a former girlfriend of the respondent who still has interest in him and trying to win him back.

As to the allegation that respondent was not supporting their children, complainant averred that she failed to see that their combined income minus loans and other obligations would not add up to their needs. Thus, they have to make necessary adjustments. It was the pressure that she exerted against her husband that brought the latter out of their conjugal dwelling.

In her Report dated October 7, 2008, Judge Carag recommended for the dismissal of the case inasmuch as complainant failed to appear during the investigation and complainant's affidavit withdrawing her complaint

The filing of the affidavit of desistance by the complainant does not automatically result to the dismissal of the administrative case. It has been held that administrative proceedings do not depend upon the whims and caprices of the complainant for the aggrieved party is the court system. The issue in administrative cases is not whether the complainant has a cause of action against the respondent, but whether the employees has [sic] breached the norms and standards of the judiciary.

Even without considering the affidavit of desistance executed by the complainant, the instant administrative complaint should be dismissed. It is incumbent upon the complainant to prove her accusation. As it stands, her complaint did not provide any direct proof showing or much less indicating lack of morality, decency and propriety on the part of the respondent. It bears emphasis that upon the institution of the complaint, respondent categorically denied all the accusations therein. If at all, the instant complaint came about because of domestic misunderstanding between the parties herein as husband and wife.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court the recommendation that the instant administrative matter against MARCEL F. CATRAL, Clerk of Court III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, be DISMISSED.

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.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Marcel F. Catral, Clerk of Court III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.