ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. P-01-1473.June 25, 2002]
BENITEZ vs. ACOSTA
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 25 2002.
A.M. No. P-01-1473(Gloria O. Benitez vs. Medel P. Acosta, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite.)
In a final decision of this Court, [1] cralaw respondent Medel P. Acosta, former Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite, was found guilty of misfeasance and nonfeasance for his failure (a) to make a return on a writ of execution, (b) to make the periodical reports required by the Rules of Court, (c) to comply with Rule 39, �9 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the disposition of proceeds of auction sales, and (d) to conduct a public auction sale as contemplated by law which resulted in the simulation of the auction sale, and for turning over the proceeds of the sale to parties not authorized by law to receive them; and as such, he was ordered dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
He now presents for consideration of the Court an "Appeal for Clemency," alleging that because of the stigma attached to his dismissal, he is unable to find a job and that although his wife, who is frail, takes in laundry, his family has had to live on the kindness of relatives and friends. Respondent says he is not even sure if he can enroll his three children this school year in a public school.
Respondent thus seeks the reduction of his penalty to suspension and/or the removal of the penalty of forfeiture of all retirement benefits and disqualification from employment in any branch of the government so that he and his family "could start a new life."
To be sure, the penalty imposed on respondent was made pursuant to Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) which provides:
Sec. 9. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and the disqualification for re-employment in the government service. Further, it may be imposed without prejudice to criminal or civil liability.
There have been instances in the past, however, where the Court has shown compassion by modifying already final decisions of dismissal in administrative cases.
In Castillo v. Calanog, [2] cralaw three years after a judge was dismissed from the service for immorality, the Court, upon filing of a "plea for judicial clemency and compassion," lifted the penalty of disqualification from public office after the judge had shown sincere repentance and reformation.
In another case, this Court took cognizance of "a Plea of Mercy" of the heirs of a judge who had been dismissed three years earlier for grave abuse of authority and evident partiality, gross incompetence, and ignorance of the law. The Court granted his heirs the money equivalent of his accrued sick and vacation leaves and, in addition, a gratuity equivalent to twenty-five (25%) of his retirement benefits. [3] cralaw
In the case of respondent, his 201 file shows that he is now 37 years of age, having been born on February 12, 1965; and that he has three children of school age: Maricel T. Acosta, 9, Maynard Anthony T. Acosta, 7, and Micah Sephania T. Acosta, 4. His government and judicial service spanned 15 years from September 16, 1985 to March 27, 2001. This appears to be his first administrative case. These circumstances, as well as the Court's compassion towards the members of his family who are innocent of respondent's misdeeds but who are now suffering because of them, warrant a mitigation of the penalty imposed on respondent. While the Court is not inclined to grant the request for the reduction of the penalty of dismissal to suspension, it has decided to exclude from the penalty of forfeiture the accrued leave credits which respondent might otherwise be entitled to conformable with its decision in Fojas, Jr. v. Rollan [4] cralaw and In re Olivas and Antonio Cuyco [5] cralaw where the Court did not order the forfeiture of the leave credits of the dismissed judicial employees.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court RESOLVED to GRANT respondent Medel P. Acosta's plea for clemency and to EXCLUDE from the order of forfeiture in its decision of March 27, 2001 his accrued leave credits.(Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban and Quisumbing, JJ., are abroad on official business.)
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Promulgated on March 27, 2001.
[2] cralaw 239 SCRA 268 (1994).
[3] cralaw A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390, "Meris v. Ofilada," and A.M. No. RTJ-98-1411, "Hernandez v. Ofilada," on Oct. 17, 2001.
[4] cralaw A.M. No. P-00-1384, Feb. 27, 2002.
[5] cralaw A.M. No. CA-02-12-P, May 2, 2002.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
