EN BANC
[A.M. No. 2012-07-SC. September 4, 2012.]
RE: LETTER FROM CONCERNED LOWER COURT EMPLOYEES AGAINST MR. CARMELINO S. SUN, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT PERSONNEL DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES-OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated September 4, 2012, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. 2012-07-SC (Re: Letter from Concerned Lower Court Employees against Mr. Carmelino S. Sun, Human Resource Management Officer III, Regional Trial Court Personnel Division, Office of Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator). — The present administrative case arose from an unsigned anonymous letter-complaint, dated December 12, 2011, from "concerned lower court employees" (complainants) against Mr. Carmelino S. Sun (respondent), Human Resource Management Officer III, Regional Trial Court (RTC) Personnel Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS)-Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
The complainants charged the respondent of committing the following improper acts and practices: interference/intervention in the filling of vacant positions in the lower courts; deliberate withholding of clearances requested by lower court employees when his request was not granted; and arrogant attitude in dealing with applicants/employees of the lower courts who go to and transact official business with the office.
The complainants also requested that the respondent be stripped of his duty of releasing the clearances applied for by retiring and resigning lower court employees. DAESTI
On January 24, 2012, Atty. Caridad A. Pabello, Chief of the OAS-OCA, issued a memorandum directing the respondent to file his comment to the letter-complaint within ten (10) days from notice.
The following day, Atty. Pabello issued a memorandum to Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez, recommending that the respondent be reassigned from the RTC Personnel Division to the Property Division, pending evaluation of the complaint against him. Court Administrator Marquez approved Atty. Pabello's recommendation and reassigned the respondent to the RTC Property Division, effective February 1, 2012.
The respondent submitted his comment to the complaint on February 16, 2012.
On February 22, 2012, Court Administrator Marquez referred, for appropriate action, the letter-complaint and the respondent's comment to the OAS, which then required the respondent to submit his comment/explanation within five (5) days from notice.
In his comment dated March 5, 2012, the respondent vehemently denies the allegations against him.
On the charge that he interferes with the filling-up of vacant positions in the lower courts, the respondent argues that it would be impossible for him to exert any influence on the appointment of court employees, as such process is exactly designed to preclude any unlawful interference; that the appointment process is based on merit and fitness, and subject to review by a collegial body composed of representatives from different courts and offices. He explained further that the recommending authority for appointment to vacancies in the branch of the court and in the Office of the Clerk of Court are the Presiding Judge and the Executive Judge, respectively; that his job is mainly to ensure that the recommended applicants satisfy the qualifications set by the Civil Service Commission. Also, he argues that the complainants have failed to particularly state the circumstances of his alleged interferences, so as to enable him to present a detailed refutation.
As to the allegation that he habitually calls judges, clerks of court and other lower court personnel to follow-up on the recommendation of his favored applicant/s, the respondent argues that the usual topics of his phone conversations with judges, clerks of court and lower court personnel are limited to the submission of requirements, accomplishment of prescribed forms, interpretation of qualification standards and other related issues; that it is but appropriate to introduce himself as an employee of the OCA, RTC Personnel Division during phone calls; and that no reports were filed against him with respect to this allegation since he assumed his position in the RTC Personnel Division in April 2002. He added that he does not socialize with RTC-NCR Judges and was never seen roaming around the lower courts' premises.
On the charge that he deliberately withholds the clearances of court employees who denied him favors, the respondent argues that it is the discretion of his superiors, and not his, on whether to withhold the release of an employee's clearance; and that, as processor, his duty is merely ministerial in nature. He explained further that, for as long as the employee concerned has submitted all the requirements for his clearance, he affixes his initial to the clearance and forwards it to the signing authority. HISAET
Lastly, he denies, for being unsubstantiated, the charge that he displays an arrogant attitude in dealing with applicants-employees who transact official business with his office.
OAS Evaluation
In a memorandum dated August 2, 2012, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer Atty. Eden T. Candelaria finds the allegations against the respondent to be unsubstantiated; that the complainants, through vague allegations and generalizations, have failed to satisfy the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in an administrative proceeding; and that mere allegation is neither evidence nor equivalent to proof.
She recommends that the anonymous letter-complaint against the respondent be dismissed for lack of merit and that the respondent be reassigned back to his former position. However, she warns the respondent to be more circumspect in dealing with employees in the Judiciary, and to exercise utmost prudence in the performance of his duties, so as to avoid any suspicion of impropriety or cast doubt in the Court's integrity.
THE COURT'S RULING
We agree with the evaluation and recommendation made by the OAS that the complaint against the respondent should be dismissed because the allegations are not supported by substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required to support a finding of guilt in an administrative case. The requirement is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the act or omission complained of, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming 1 or preponderant. 2 CSIDEc
In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the onus of establishing the averments of his complaint with substantial evidence. 3 In this case, the complainants failed to present evidence to show that the respondent committed the complained acts and practices. Mere suspicion without proof cannot be the basis of conviction. 4
In A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-184-CA-J, 5 this Court dismissed an administrative complaint filed against three Justices of the Court of Appeals for allegedly rendering an arbitrary and baseless decision on the ground that the complaint contained plain accusations of misconduct, loosely based on hunches and speculations.
Despite this finding and in the exercise of our management prerogative, however, we find it in the best interest of the service to permanently reassign the respondent — as a pro-active administrative, not as a penal, measure — to an office within the Office of the Court Administrator to avoid the occasions complained about as these are incidents that this Court should guard against. This pro-active approach can serve the Court well as it is better to prevent than to intervene as a remedial measure after violations have taken place. The Court Administrator is hereby directed to recommend to the Court, within 10 days from notice of this Resolution, a position within the Office of the Court Administrator, to which respondent Carmelino S. Sun can be reassigned without loss of seniority or diminution in rank and pay." (adv105)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Orbase v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 175115, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 111, 126.
2.Re: Complaint of Mrs. Corazon S. Salvador against Spouses Noel and Amelia Serafico, A.M. No. 2008-20-SC, March 15, 2010, 615 SCRA 186, 203, citing Marcelo v. Bungubung, G.R. No. 175201, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 589.
3.Hon. Barbers v. Judge Laguio, Jr., 404 Phil. 443, 475 (2001).
4.Spouses Lorena v. Judge Encomienda, 362 Phil. 248, 257 (1999).
5.Entitled Re: Verified Complaint of Engr. Oscar Ongjoco, etc. against Hon. Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., et al., January 31, 2012.