SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-15-3382. October 12, 2015.]
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4062-P]
JUDGE LERIO C. CASTIGADOR, petitioner, vs. RANILO C. SOLIS, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 15, NAIC, CAVITE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 12 October 2015which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-15-3382 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4062-P] (Judge Lerio C. Castigador v. Ranilo C. Solis, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Naic, Cavite)
In his affidavit-complaint, 1 dated May 16, 2013, Judge Lerio C. Castigador (Judge Castigador) of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Naic, Cavite (RTC), administratively charged Ranilo Solis (Solis), Clerk III of the same court, with grave misconduct before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
Judge Castigador alleged that on February 27, 2013, at around 11:20 o'clock in the morning, at the entrance of the Hall of Justice, Naic, Cavite (HOJ), Solis uttered, "Putang inang Judge Lerio Castigador na iyan! Bakit ba pagkainit init ng dugo nyan sa akin! Putang inang Judge Lerio Castigador na iyan! Ipapapatay ko iyan sa taga Salinas." He claimed that it was purportedly heard by utility employee Crisanto M. Diaz (Diaz). On February 28, 2013, the said incident was entered in the police blotter 2 of the Philippine National Police Station in Naic, Cavite.
In his Comment, 3 dated April 15, 2013, Solis averred that, at the time and date of the alleged incident, he was chatting with other Municipal Trial Court (MTC) employees, Lydia Perillo (Perillo) and Rodinil C. dela Cruz (dela Cruz), at the lobby of the HOJ. He claimed that there were plenty of people in the lobby, including PO2 Agapito Gutierrez (PO2 Gutierrez) and security guard Frisco Constante (Constante). At that time, Constante, with Diaz standing beside him, was manning his post near the lobby entrance. Solis insisted that he did not utter the threatening words against his superior, Judge Castigador, while in the lobby. He related that their conversation drifted from one topic to another, one of them was the common belief that drug pushers in Salinas were being summarily executed without any trial by the court.
Solis further asserted that Diaz's allegation was unbelievable. He claimed that he had been employed for almost 34 years in the judiciary, and, for said reason, he would not jeopardize his job on such a reckless utterance that could result to grave consequences. Solis attached the affidavits of Perillo, dela Cruz, PO2 Gutierrez, and Constante to his comment to substantiate his defense. Finally, he offered his sincere apologies to Judge Castigador for the alleged incident.
In his Reply-Affidavit, 4 dated May 31, 2013, Judge Castigador asserted that the positive testimony of Diaz prevailed over Solis' negative defense. He assailed that Solis had a gripe against him for previously calling his attention on his alleged solicitations of financial favor from litigants. Judge Castigador concluded that Solis' apology was an admission of the latter's guilt.
In his Rejoinder-Affidavit, 5 dated June 14, 2013, Solis asserted that Judge Castigador's reply-affidavit contained general allegations but was devoid of supporting evidence to establish the truth thereof. Though he apologized to Judge Castigador, it was not for the alleged utterance, but for whatever reason he might have committed against him.
In his Manifestation-Affidavit, 6 dated August 15, 2013, Judge Castigador averred that Solis apologized twice — in his comment and in person — because the latter offended him.
Report and Recommendation of the OCA
In its report and recommendation, 7 dated September 11, 2014, the OCA opined that there was a material conflict between the allegations of Judge Castigador and those of Solis. To afford the parties an opportunity to substantiate their respective positions, a full-blown investigation was in order. Hence, the OCA recommended that the administrative complaint be referred to the executive judge of the RTC of Trece Martires City, Cavite, for investigation, report and recommendation.
In a Resolution, 8 dated November 17, 2014, the Court adopted the report of the OCA and referred the administrative complaint to the executive judge as recommended. CAIHTE
The case was assigned to Executive Judge Aurelio G. Icasiano (Executive Judge Icasiano) of the RTC of Trece Martires City, Cavite. Thereafter, on February 11, 2015, Executive Judge Icasiano conducted a hearing-investigation where both parties were afforded the opportunity to present their respective witnesses.
Version of Complainant
To prove his complaint, Judge Castigador presented himself, Diaz, Atty. Reiner C. Luna (Atty. Luna), and Marizel Diaz (Marizel) as his witnesses. Their combined testimonies are as follow:
Judge Castigador testified Solis was the criminal clerk of his office; that on February 27, 2013, at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Diaz, who was his driver at that time, relayed to him the disrespectful utterance made by Solis while they were on their way home; that he called a meeting among his staff on February 28, 2013 to inform them of the incident; that Solis was present during the meeting, but he denied making the utterance; and that before the incident, he confronted Solis because he heard gossips that the latter had been soliciting money from court litigants.
Diaz testified that he heard Solis utter the disrespectful statement against Judge Castigador; that he was only a meter away from Solis; that PO2 Gutierrez, Perillo and Constante were present when Solis uttered the disrespectful language; that after the incident, he went to the office of some court employees and told them of what Solis purportedly said; and that he relayed the incident to Judge Castigador that afternoon because he was afraid that Solis would consummate the threat against Judge Castigador.
Atty. Luna testified that Judge Castigador indeed held a meeting a day after the incident. Marizel, wife of Diaz, testified that, on March 2, 2013, dela Cruz went to their house looking for Diaz. Both of them admitted that they had no personal knowledge of the incident.
Version of Respondent
Solis testified that he was present on the date, time and place of the alleged incident; that he was with PO2 Gutierrez, Perillo, Constante, and Diaz at the lobby of the HOJ; that Diaz was beside Constante, the entrance security guard; that he denied the charge imputed against him; that he did not know the reason why Diaz was against him; and that he admitted subsequently asking for forgiveness from Judge Castigador.
Perillo, an MTC employee, testified that she was with Solis, PO2 Gutierrez and Constante at the lobby of the HOJ during the time of the incident; that she did not hear the alleged utterance made by Solis; that she was only one and a half meter away from Solis; and that she was surprised when Diaz went to their MTC office in the afternoon and told the staff about the disrespectful incident; and that Diaz told her, "Diba tiya (Perillo), sinabi ni Ranie (Solis)," to which she replied, "Me sinabi ba?"
PO2 Gutierrez also testified that he did not hear any threatening words uttered by Solis against Judge Castigador; that the incident was subsequently blottered; and that neither Solis nor Diaz was his personal friend, but mere acquaintances.
Constante testified that Solis, Perillo, PO2 Gutierrez and dela Cruz were talking at the lobby during the alleged time and date; that Diaz was standing beside him; and that despite Solis' loud tone, he did not hear the disrespectful words allegedly uttered.
Finally, dela Cruz testified that he was with PO2 Gutierrez, Perillo, Solis, and Constante at the time and date of the incident; that Solis did not utter the alleged words; and that, after the incident, he sent a text message to Diaz because he wanted to know why the latter made the allegations.
Report of the Executive Judge Icasiano
In his Investigative Report, 9 dated March 23, 2015, Executive Judge Icasiano found that it was doubtful that Solis uttered the disrespectful words against Judge Castigador. Aside from Diaz, none of those present during the alleged incident heard the discourteous utterances. PO2 Gutierrez, dela Cruz and Perillo were conversing closely with Solis but they did not hear the alleged utterance. Further, Diaz never participated in their conversation. As the testimonies of the defense witnesses were consistent, based on personal knowledge, and duly corroborated, Executive Judge Icasiano gave more credence to the respondent's version.
Accordingly, Executive Judge Icasiano recommended that Solis must be relieved from liability arising from the administrative charge because the evidence presented failed to establish the commission of the alleged act of misconduct.
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts the recommendation of Executive Judge Icasiano.
Misconduct is defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence. 10
In this case, the Court agrees with Executive Judge Icasiano that Judge Castigador failed to establish with substantial evidence Solis' alleged act of misconduct based on the following:
First, of all the witnesses presented by Judge Castigador, only Diaz claimed to have heard the threatening utterances. According to Diaz, he heard Solis utter the alleged disrespectful language against Judge Castigador. He, however, admitted that he was not one of those conversing with Solis.
On the other hand, Solis presented Perillo, PO2 Gutierrez, dela Cruz, and Constante as his witnesses. They all attested that Solis did not make any statement against Judge Castigador. Perillo, PO2 Gutierrez and dela Cruz were all conversing with Solis during the alleged incident but they did not hear any disrespectful language from him. Constante's testimony corroborated the same. Curiously, Diaz was standing beside Constante, but the latter did not hear the foul language from Solis. Even when Diaz came to the MTC Office, where he disclosed the incident to the employees therein, Perillo steadfastly denied hearing any offensive statement from Solis.
Despite the grueling questioning conducted by Executive Judge Icasiano, the witnesses of Solis did not falter. Between the uncorroborated testimony of Diaz and the consistent testimonies Solis' four (4) witnesses, the Court finds the latter more persuasive.
Second, Solis presented credible witnesses, particularly PO2 Gutierrez. The latter, a policeman, knows the consequences of speaking untruthfully in the witness stand. Yet, he stood by his assertion that he did not hear Solis utter the insolent words against Judge Castigador. Moreover, PO2 Gutierrez is not a friend of Solis or Diaz. For the said reason, PO2 Gutierrez can be considered as a disinterested witness.
It is a well-settled rule that a disinterested witness' testimony is afforded evidentiary weight by his or her lack of interest in the outcome of the case. This lack of stake makes the disinterested witness' testimony more believable. To actively take part in litigation as a party or a witness entails willingness to commit to the arduous and exacting nature of most judicial proceedings. The disinterested witness' candor and submission to the proceedings before the court add credibility and believability to the content of his or her testimony. 11
Third, Judge Castigador claims that, on March 27, 2013, Solis went to his chamber and apologized by saying, "Judge, sorry ho, kawawa naman ang pamilya ko pag natanggal ako." 12 Solis admitted that he apologized, not for the complained words he uttered, but for whatever reason Judge Castigador had against him.
The Court is of the view that Solis' apology to Judge Castigador does not establish his administrative guilt. It is merely general in character, without him positively acknowledging that he authorized the foul words against Judge Castigador. These is no provision in the rules of evidence which provides that an apology by a party should be considered as an admission against him. Further, it is not impossible for someone to ask for forgiveness for an act which he did not do. Sometimes, a person's pride would be surpassed by his desire for harmony, regardless of blame or fault, in order to have peace of mind.
As the administrative charge of misconduct against Solis was not proven with substantial evidence, the Court has no recourse but to dismiss the subject case.
WHEREFORE, the administrative charge of grave misconduct against Ranilo Solis, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Naic, Cavite, is DISMISSED. (Carpio, J., on official leave; Brion, J., designated Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 2222, and Peralta, J., designated Acting Member, per Special Order No. 2223, both dated September 29, 2015)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO
Division Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 4.
2. Id. at 6.
3. Id. at 9-11.
4. Id. at 25-27.
5. Id. at 49-51.
6. Id. at 55-56.
7. Id. at 59-61.
8. Id. at 62-63.
9. Id. at 66-81.
10. In re Castor, A.M. No. 2013-08-SC, October 8, 2013, 707 SCRA 28, 32.
11. Sison-Barias v. Judge Rubia, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2388, June 10, 2014, 726 SCRA 94, 116.
12. Rollo, p. 27.