ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2002-P. October 16, 2006]
BALDOMERO DE VERA SOLIMAN, JR. v. PRINCESITO D. SORIANO, PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), SCIENCE CITY OF MU�OZ, NUEVA ECIJA
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT. 16, 2006 .
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2002-P (Baldomero De Vera Soliman, Jr. v. Princesito D. Soriano, Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Science City of Mu�oz, Nueva Ecija)
The instant administrative matter arose from the Sworn Complaint ("Reklamo") dated August 10, 2004, where Baldomero De Vera Soliman, Jr. charged Princesito D. Soriano with violating A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct of Court Personnel. The allegations in the complaint, as well as the defenses of respondent, are summarized in the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated September 18, 2006, to wit:
Complainant narrates that on 3 August 2004, at about 10:05 in the morning he, together with two others, were inside the office of Irene P. Fueconcillo, Branch Clerk of Court of MTCC-Mu�oz, Nueva Ecija. Complainant was with Mrs. Leonila Domingo Cuevas and Mrs. Hedeliza G. Soliman, who sought his assistance as a tabloid reporter and a former commentator/broadcaster in filing a pleading before the MTCC, Mu�oz, Nueva Ecija. When he submitted the pleading, a Manifestation and Ex-Parte Motion, respondent who was also inside the office stood up and approached him and suddenly pointed a finger at his face from a distance of about eight (8) inches and shouted "HUWAG KANG MAKIALAM DITO." "LUMAYAS KA DITO." The branch clerk of court pacified the respondent who went to his table, got his backpack bag and went out of the office banging the door on his way out. After a while respondent returned to the office without his bag. A stenographer by the name of "Madam Flora" led respondent away. After his motion was received, complainant went to PNP-Mu�oz and had the incident blottered.
Attached to his complaint are the following: a) copy of the Manifestation and Ex-Parte Motion he filed in Criminal Case No. SD (04)-975 entitled "Arnold De Vera vs. Roberto Cuevas and John Cuevas" for Frustrated Murder pending before RTC, Branch 37, Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija; b) a certified xerox copy of the Police Blotter dated 3 August 2004; and c) the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mrs. Leonila Domingo Cuevas attesting to what transpired between complainant and respondent on 3 August 2004.
In his Counter-Affidavit ("Kontra-Salaysay") dated 29 October 2004 respondent refutes the allegations of complainant and narrates his version of the incident.
Respondent says that prior to the incident of 3 August 2004, he had met complainant when he served summons on him which led to a misunderstanding between them. Complainant filed a criminal complaint against him for unjust vexation which was dismissed by the court. Complainant, however, succeeded in having him suspended for nine (9) months through an administrative case, A.M. P-03-1705, relative to his service of summons incident. The Court ordered his suspension for nine (9) months for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Respondent believes that despite his suspension, complainant still harbors a personal grudge against him and will not stop until he is dismissed from the service.
Referring particularly to the incident in question, respondent alleges that the true intention of complainant in going to their office was to vex and provoke him, the latter knowing that he could easily cause respondent's dismissal from the service if respondent succumb to the complainant's provocation. The malicious intent of complainant is evident from the fact that the "Motion" he was filing did not pertain to any case pending in MTCC-Mu�oz, Nueva Ecija. The "Motion" was rather intended for Criminal Case No. SD (04-975) pending in RTC, Branch 37, Baloc, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. In other words, complainant was insisting in submitting the Motion to the MTCC, Mu�oz when it ought to be submitted to another court, the RTC in Sto. Domingo.
Respondent denies that he pointed a finger at the complainant, the truth being that while insisting that the acting branch clerk of court [received] the "Motion" which contained allegations tending to implicate him (respondent) in a murder case, complainant turned to respondent and directly implicated him in the said murder case, and threatened him "KAKASUHAN KITA ULIT." Knowing that complainant was provoking him and threatening to file another case against him, he left the office without saying a word and went directly to PNP-Mu�oz to report the incident. However, when he returned to the office[,] complainant was still there and made utterances against him. Respondent also denies Mrs. Leonila Domingo Cuevas' allegation in her "Sinumpaang Salaysay."
Respondent attached to his counter-affidavit the Joint "Sinumpaang Salaysay" of Irene P. Fueconcillo, Florida C. Reyes, Ruperto V. Divina and Prudencio V. Lea�o, all of the MTCC-Science City of Mu�oz, Nueva Ecija, attesting to what transpired between respondent and complainant on 3 August 2004 at their office; photocopies of the Police Blotter dated 3 August 2004; and the Certification from the Police Blotter dated 22 October 2004.
Considering that the parties presented conflicting allegations,
the Court referred the matter to Executive Judge Inocencio B. Sagun, Jr., MTCC,
In his Report and Recommendation dated March 1, 2006, the Executive Judge pointed out that respondent's denial of the complainant's accusations against him was corroborated by his co-employees. The Executive Judge also observed that he found the complainant "too eager to have respondent x x x dismissed from the service for personal reasons of vengeance due to his [complainant's] previous altercation with respondent in several cases mentioned in the complaint." Moreover, complainant has the habit of filing administrative cases against public officials.
The Executive Judge opined that between the conflicting allegations of the complainant and respondent, the more truthful version appears to be that of respondent; that the charge has no basis, as the complainant appears to be "obsessed x x x of having respondent dismissed from the service x x x".
In its Report dated September 18, 2006, the OCA concurred with the findings of the Executive Judge, and likewise recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.
The Court agrees that respondent is not administratively liable.
It is settled that the burden of substantiating the charges in an administrative proceeding against a court employee falls on the complainant, [1] cralaw who must be able to prove the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him or her should be competent and derived from direct knowledge. [2] cralaw Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence. [3] cralaw
Indeed, as pointed out by the OCA, while it is our duty to investigate and determine the truth behind every matter in complaints against court personnel, it is also our duty to protect and exonerate them from baseless administrative charges. [4] cralaw
The Court thus resolves to DISMISS the instant administrative complaint against Princesito D. Soriano for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Cortes v. Agcaoili, 355 Phil. 848, 880 (1998), citing Lachica v. Flordeliza, 254 SCRA 278, 284 (1996).
[2] cralaw Sierra v. Tiamson, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1847, July 21, 2004, 434 SCRA 560, 563.
[3] cralaw See Lambino v. De Vera, 341 Phil. 62 (1997).
[4] cralaw Cruz v. Iturralde, 450 Phil. 77, 88 (2003), citing Sarmiento v. Salamat, 416 Phil. 684 (2001).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
