ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[OCA I.P.I. No. 99-618-P.September 26, 2001]

ANTERO M. BRIZA, JR. vs. NICART

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 26 2001.

OCA I.P.I. No. 99-618-P (Antero M. Briza, Jr. vs. Jay L. Nicart Clerk of Court V.)

In a sworn letter-complaint dated 10 March 1999, herein complainant Antero M. Briza, Jr. charged respondent lawyer Jay L. Nicart, Clerk of Court V of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, with Conduct Unbecoming a Court Employee, Grave Misconduct and Immortality, relative to an incident between them which transpired on the evening of 24 December 1998.

According to complainant Briza, herein respondent displayed "deplorable arrogance" by cursing, uttering scaborous and offensive language against him and slapping him, when complainant's dog defecated in front of Nicart's apartment.As a result, herein complainant filed a complaint with the Office of the Barangay Captain and the Office of the City prosecutor.As to the charge of immorality, Briza faults respondent Nicart for cohabiting with a woman without the benefit of marriage, and having three children with her.

In his Comment dated 05 December 1999, respondent vigorously denied the charges and explained that on the same occasion, as he tried to talk with Briza, who was then in his vehicle, the latter suddenly backed up said vehicle hitting respondent on the right knee and upper arm, which injuries were reflected in a Medical Certificate dated 07 January 1999, and which incident prompted respondent to file Criminal Case No.99-438 for physical injuries against herein complainant.Moreover, respondent alleged that Briza's family uttered invectives and slanderous words against him during the incident.

In a Resolution dated 22 November 2000, the Supreme Court referred the instant administrative case to Executive Judge Bernardita Erum of RTC-Angeles City, for investigation, report, and recommendation.In a Resolution dated 29 June 2001, Investigating Judge Erum recommended the dismissal of the charges against respondent due to insufficiency of evidence and that respondent be "reprimanded", "to be careful with his words in dealing with people."

We are in accord with the findings of the Investigating Judge, with modification as to the recommendation of reprimand.After a close perusal of the records, this Court finds the evidence adduced by complainant to be insufficient so as to exonerate respondent Nicart from the administrative charges.As aptly observed by the investigating judge, who conducted the hearings and weighed first hand the testimonies of the witnesses, complainant Briza failed to clearly and convincingly establish that respondent indeed uttered invectives and slapped him during the subject incident; the testimony of complainant as to this matter remained uncorroborated despite the alleged presence of other witnesses who saw the incident.Likewise, it is worthy to note that the Regional State Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for oral defamation and slight physical injuries against respondent Nicart.

As to the charge of immorality, this Court finds the same to be unsubstantiated and without ample basis.Records show that respondent Nicart acknowledged paternity of his three children and supports them; he never concealed such fact in applying for his present position.Furthermore, respondent testified that he has not engaged in any amorous relations with other women aside from the mother of his children, and that despite their cohabitation without marriage, the couple suffers no legal impediment to marry each other in the future, once respondent's petition for immigrant status in the United States of America is approved.In fine, the evidence presented by herein complainant is lacking so as to effectively prove the charge of immorality.

WHEREFORE, in view of foregoing, the instant administrative case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.Nonetheless, respondent Nicart, as an officer of the court, is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect and prudent in his dealings, professional or otherwise.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

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