SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 223816. June 22, 2016.]
IN RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY AND COMPASSION OF ATTY. TERESA QUIÑAL BLANCO
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 22 June 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 223816 (In Re: Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion of Atty. Teresa Quiñal Blanco)
Before the Court is a Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion filed by Atty. Teresa Quiñal Blanco (Atty. Blanco), Public Attorney III and Division Head of Division A and Labor Division, Public Attorney's Office, Cagayan de Oro District, Cagayan de Oro City.
The Antecedents:
Atty. Blanco was one of the respondents in an administrative case for gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service docketed as Adm. Case No. P-9999-0107-97 entitled "Leonila A. Bernardos v. Tiburcio M. Palasan, Jr., Teresa Q. Blanco, Luisito G. Tadlip and Restituto Obatay (Obatay)," filed before the Department of Agrarian Reform, Diliman, Quezon City (DAR).
On June 5, 2009, a Decision was rendered finding Atty. Blanco and Obatay guilty of simple neglect of duty and imposing a penalty of suspension from the service for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day.
On September 30, 2011, while her motion for reconsideration was pending, Atty. Blanco submitted an application for a judicial post. During an interview conducted by Justice Regino C. Hermosisima (Justice Hermosisima), then member of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), Atty. Blanco claimed that she was advised to seek judicial clemency for the said administrative case. Petitioner, however, remained hopeful that her motion for reconsideration would be granted so she thought it best to await the resolution of her motion for reconsideration before taking further action.
On August 8, 2012, a Resolution 1 was issued by the DAR denying Atty. Blanco's motion for reconsideration and affirming its June 5, 2009 decision. Thereafter, Atty. Blanco claimed to have fully served her suspension from March 1, 2013 to April 1, 2013.
Atty. Blanco is now before the Court seeking judicial clemency and praying that her disqualification from being nominated to any judicial post be removed. In her petition, Atty. Blanco averred, among others, the following:
7. Petitioner most humbly expresses deep remorse for the mistake committed for which she was administratively sanctioned in Leonila A. Bernardos v. Tiburcio M. Palasan, Jr., et al.; she acknowledges that the penalty imposed has taught her a lesson to be cautious and to refrain from committing same act of similar nature in the future; and to this, she humbly pleads for the grant of judicial clemency and compassion;
8. Petitioner in all honesty, believes that she has duly complied with the guidelines set forth by the Court in resolving requests for judicial clemency, as shown that:
a. She has been remorseful and has refrained from committing any acts constitutive of simple or gross negligence; she has maintained her membership in good standing in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP for brevity) and in the legal community, as whole; she served as a Director in the Board of Officers of the IBP-Misamis Oriental Chapter (2013-2015), and is the current Vice-President of the Chapter; testaments to these facts are the Certifications issued by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and by the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Hon. Dennis Z. Alcantar;
b. It is almost four (4) years from the time of issue of the DAR Resolution on August 8, 2012, and with the tasks and positions occupied by her in the legal community, petitioner has shown sincere reformation from the lapse she committed; aCIHcD
c. She has also exhibited her contribution to government service and to the public as she coordinated and participated, as a lecturer/speaker/resource person, in various seminars and fora spearheaded by different organizations in the community (Gugma sa Kabataan, and Cagayan de Oro Task Force on Children in Especially Difficult Circumstances) and government offices (Department of the Interior and Local Government, Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, Center for Health Development-Northern Mindanao, and Philippine Ports Authority);
d. Petitioner is only 51 years old and still has a long way ahead of her, a lot of productive years where when given the chance to redeem herself with the grant of judicial clemency, she can, without question, use in the service with the Judiciary;
e. Petitioner has been serving the public since 1991, immediately after graduation from the College of Law, or nearly 25 years now, and she is seeking to continue doing such with the Judiciary when granted judicial clemency; that with the indubitable record she has exhibited, the endeavors she has engaged herself into, and the length of time ahead of her, she will definitely serve the legal profession, the public and the Judiciary, when permitted, with unquestionable dedication and integrity and honesty; and that she promises to refrain from committing same acts or acts of similar nature which same meted her an administrative sanction; and
f. Petitioner has undyingly exhibited support to the programs of the Supreme Court and the ventures its committees and attached offices had been undertaking, and as a public servant, petitioner's service and commitment has received awards and recognition from the government and from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines where she was awarded with the plaque for being the Outstanding Practicing Lawyer in 2008; 2
The Court's Disposition
The Court denies the petition.
The petitioner was suspended by the DAR pursuant to Section 31, Article VIII of DAR MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 10-07, which reads:
SECTION 31. Pursuant to DAR Memorandum Order No. 4, Series of 1993, as amended by DAR Memorandum Order No. 1, Series of 1997 (General Guidelines and Delegation of Authority on Disciplinary Cases), the Office of the Undersecretary for Policy, Planning and Legal Affairs through the Legal Service or the Office of the Regional Director, shall serve as the channel for complaints against DAR officials and employees. The said office shall evaluate the complaints and proceed with the conduct of investigations in accordance with the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases. The said office may also refer the complaints against DAR officials and employees to the Ombudsman for further action/prosecution.
The DAR through its Legal Service shall have primary jurisdiction to investigate and discipline its officials and employees. Implicit in this authority, is the power to modify the penalty imposed or even grant clemency, if the circumstances warrants. Consequently, the petition for judicial clemency and compassion should be filed before the DAR as the disciplining authority which rendered the subject decision.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. cHaCAS
SO ORDERED. (Del Castillo, J., on official leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 10-21.
2. Id. at 5-6.