FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-15-3400. August 3, 2016.]
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3896-P)
INVESTIGATING JUDGE JAIME E. CONTRERAS, Branch 25, Regional Trial Court, Naga City, complainant, vs. PATRICIA DE LEON, Clerk, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Naga City; EDGAR HUFANCIA, Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Naga City; EDGAR SURTIDA IV, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Naga City; and PELAGIO J. PAPA, JR., Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Naga City, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 3, 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-15-3400 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3896-P) — INVESTIGATING JUDGE JAIME E. CONTRERAS, Branch 25, Regional Trial Court, Naga City, complainant, versus PATRICIA DE LEON, Clerk, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Naga City; EDGAR HUFANCIA, Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Naga City; EDGAR SURTIDA IV, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Naga City; and PELAGIO J. PAPA, JR., Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Naga City, respondents.
The instant administrative matter stemmed from the complaint of Eleanor Olivan ("Olivan") alleging that Sheriff Arnel Jose A. Rubio ("Rubio"), Deputy Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Naga City, charged excessive sheriff's expenses and bloated liquidation expenses he supposedly incurred in the implementation of the Writ of Execution dated September 29, 2005 in connection with Land Registration Case No. N-594, GLRC Rec. No. 8109 entitled "Domingo Olivan, et al. v. The Municipality of Pasacao, et al." 1 The complaint was docketed as OCA IPI No. 09-3082-P. 2
In compliance with the Resolution of the Court's Third Division dated January 11, 2010, Executive Judge Jaime E. Contreras ("Investigating Judge Contreras") of the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Naga City submitted his Report and Recommendation dated December 5, 2010. 3
The investigation on the matter against Rubio revealed that Patricia De Leon ("De Leon"), Clerk, RTC-Office of the Clerk of Court ("RTC-OCC"), Naga City, Edgar Hufancia ("Hufancia"), Sheriff, RTC Branch 21, Naga City, Edgar Surtida IV ("Surtida") Sheriff IV, RTC Branch 25, Naga City, and Pelagio J. Papa, Jr. ("Papa"), Sheriff, RTC-OCC, Naga City, were also involved in anomalous transactions wherein they were able to collect certain sums of money from Olivan under the guise of helping her in the land registration case. 4
On March 28, 2011, the Court referred the Report and Recommendation of Investigating Judge Contreras to the Office of the Court Administrator ("OCA") for evaluation, report and recommendation. 5 In its Memorandum dated March 14, 2012, 6 the OCA recommended, among others, that the December 5, 2010 Report and Recommendation of Judge Contreras with respect to the charges of misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a court employee against respondents be docketed as a separate administrative matter, and that respondents be required to file their respective comments within ten (10) days from notice. 7 This Court approved the March 14, 2012 Memorandum of the OCA in its Resolution dated June 13, 2012. 8
Respondent Hufancia filed his Comment dated August 14, 2012, 9 wherein he explained that "because he had tried to convince the Sangguniang Bayan of Pasacao, Camarines Sur, to instead buy the subject property from complainant Olivan, the same necessitated additional expenses which were not included in the original estimate of expenses. Thus, in connection with this, he received the amount of [P]24,000.00 from complainant Olivan but add[ed] that he issued receipts for every amount that he received from her. He stresse[d], however, that he returned the said amount to complainant Olivan during the formal investigation." 10 DTCSHA
In its Memorandum dated September 1, 2015, 11 the OCA informed the Court that per verification with the Office of Administrative Services, Hufancia passed away on August 31, 2013. 12 However, since Hufancia was able to file his Comment, the OCA continued to decide the matter on the merits as against him in accordance with Memorandum Circular No. 8, series of 2010 of the Civil Service Commission. 13 Thus, in the same Memorandum, the OCA found Hufancia guilty of dishonesty, but since his death "complicates the imposition of a penalty against him," it nonetheless recommended that the administrative complaint against him be dismissed. 14 The OCA explained thus:
In the instant case, respondent Sheriff Hufancia is guilty of dishonesty for unilaterally receiving the amount of [P]24,000.00 and for failing to issue an official receipt for the same. While he later on returned the amount to complainant Olivan, the fact still remains that he accepted the same and did not issue a receipt therefor. Clearly, respondent Sheriff Hufancia committed serious dishonesty and should be dismissed from the service.
Respondent Hufancia's supervening death complicates the imposition of a penalty against him. The ruling of the Court in the case of Areola v. Patag15 is instructive on the matter:
This is not the first time that a respondent in an administrative case died during its pendency. In some cases, the death occurred either before respondent could submit a comment on the complaint, before an investigation could be conducted, or before the investigating judge or the OCA could make a finding on the culpability of respondent. In Apiag v. Cantero, the investigation against respondent for gross misconduct had already been terminated, and the investigating judge and the OCA had already made a finding on the charge and recommended respondent's suspension and dismissal from the service, respectively; but respondent died while his case was being deliberated upon by the Court. In all these instances, the Court ordered the dismissal of the cases and did not see it fit to impose a penalty on respondents. 16
Thus, the dismissal of the case against respondent Hufancia is in order. 17
In letters dated December 6, 2015 18 and June 12, 2016, 19 and an undated letter filed on April 27, 2016, 20 Hufancia's widow, Rosie H. Hufancia, requested for the early resolution of the instant administrative matter in order to process her application for survivorship benefits. In view of such request, we adopt the recommendation of the OCA in its Memorandum dated September 1, 2015 and dismiss the instant administrative complaint only as against the late Edgar Hufancia. As correctly observed by the OCA, Hufancia's death renders the imposition of sanctions against him inappropriate, if not impossible. 21
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint as against the late Edgar Hufancia is DISMISSED. CScTED
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 1.
2. Entitled "Eleanor P. Olivan v. Arnel Jose A. Rubio, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Naga City."
3. Rollo, pp. 1-15.
4. Id. at 13-14.
5. Id. at 16.
6. Id. at 18-24.
7. Id. at 24.
8. Id. at 25.
9. Id. at 41-46.
10. Id. at 91.
11. Id. at 87-100.
12. Id. at 91.
13. Id. at 93-94. Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 8, series of 2010, "[i]n situations where the death occurred while the case is pending formal investigation: 1.1. [t]he administrative case should not be dismissed when the death of the respondent occurred when the formal investigation reached the stage where respondent is considered to have been afforded due process, as when the following concur: 1) respondent was notified of the charge against him/her as when he/she was issued the formal charge; and 2) when respondent has filed an answer to the formal charge or has waived his/her right to file the same (as this is the stage when respondent has been afforded the opportunity to explain his/her side)."
14. Id. at 96.
15. 594 Phil. 416, 421-422 (2008).
16. Id. at 96.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 106.
19. Id. at 111.
20. Id. at 110.
21. See Areola v. Patag, supra note 15, at 422.