EN BANC
[IPI No. 16-246-CA-J. July 18, 2017.]
RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF ENGR. RAMIL E. MORALES AGAINST HON. CELIA C. LIBREA-LEAGOGO, HON. AMY C. LAZARO-JAVIER AND HON. MELCHOR Q.C. SADANG, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES, ELEVENTH DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, RELATIVE TO CA-G.R. SP NO. 126067
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedJULY 18, 2017, which reads as follows: EDCcaS
"IPI No. 16-246-CA-J (Re: Verified Complaint of Engr. Ramil E. Morales against Hon. Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, Hon. Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Hon. Melchor Q.C. Sadang, Associate Justices, Eleventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila, relative to CA-G.R. SP No. 126067). — This administrative complaint 1 for grave misconduct with prayer for disbarment was filed by Engr. Ramil E. Morales (Morales) against Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cecilia C. Librea-Leagogo, Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Melchor Q.C. Sadang (respondents), relative to their Decision 2 dated May 14, 2015 and Resolution 3 dated February 3, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 126067 entitled "Ramil E. Morales v. Roland Pidlaoan."
The instant case stemmed from the administrative complaint filed by Roland Pidlaoan (Pidlaoan) against Morales for dishonesty before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (ODO-MOLEO), entitled "Roland Pidlaoan v. Engr. Ramil E. Morales" docketed as OMB-P-A-09-0908-I.
The antecedents are as follows:
An affidavit of complaint dated December 11, 2008, was filed by Pidlaoan before the Quezon City Police District Office against Morales as Acting Chief of the Building Plan Processing Section, Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) of Quezon City. Pidlaoan alleged that he was the Project Manager of the construction firm Metro Stonerich Corporation (MSC), which undertook the expansion project of Shoemart (SM) Cubao, and filed an application for inspection clearance for the installation of electrical and fire equipment. Pidlaoan alleged that Morales introduced himself as an employee of Quezon City Hall and asked for the amount of PhP89,000 to facilitate the said clearance. Pidlaoan handed the amount of PhP89,000 to Morales, which the latter issued a photocopy of an official receipt. Later on, MSC asked for the original copy of the official receipt but Morales failed to give the same. Thereafter, upon investigation of the MSC, it found out that the amount paid by Morales in Quezon City Treasurer's Office was only Eighty Nine Pesos (PhP89) only.
Hence, Pidlaoan filed an administrative complaint against Morales for dishonesty before the ODO-MOLEO, entitled "Roland Pidlaoan v. Engr. Ramil E. Morales" docketed as OMB-P-A-09-0908-I.
On the basis of the same allegations in the affidavit of complaint, an Information 4 was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City by the ODO-MOLEO against Morales for Estafa through falsification, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-11-173719.
Morales, in his counter-affidavit 5 denied the allegations against him. He alleged that at the time of the alleged transaction, he was the Acting Chief, Building Plan Processing Section, BFP of Quezon City, and he did not introduce himself as an employee of Quezon City Hall. Morales denied that he received the amount of PhP89,000, as he was not the cashier at the Treasurer's Office, hence, not his official function. Morales asserted that there was no proof showing that the said amount was handed to him. Morales claimed that the estafa case against him was fabricated because it was Pidlaoan, who misappropriated the PhP89,000 for his personal use, in conspiracy with certain Ramon Diolino, fixer and Pidlaoan's errand boy.
In a Decision 6 dated February 7, 2011 of the ODO-MOLEO, Morales was found guilty of serious dishonesty and was meted out the penalty of dismissal from service. Morales filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) but it was denied by ODO-MOLEO in the Order 7 dated November 23, 2011.
Meanwhile, on June 27, 2012, the RTC issued an Order 8 provisionally dismissing the criminal case for estafa through falsification against Morales with docket No. Q-11-173719.
Morales seek to reverse the Orders of ODO-MOLEO which found him guilty of serious dishonesty and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service. Thus, he filed a Petition for Review 9 before the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 126067 entitled "Ramil E. Morales v. Roland Pidlaoan," which was raffled to herein respondents.
In a Decision 10 dated May 14, 2015, respondents acting in their capacity as Associate Justices of the CA, affirmed the February 7, 2011 Decision and November 23, 2011 Order of the ODO-MOLEO.
Pending Morales' MR 11 before the CA, the RTC issued an Order 12 dated October 8, 2015, permanently dismissing the criminal charges against him. Hence, he filed a Supplemental (to the MR), 13 with attached Order of Permanent Dismissal. 14 ISHaCD
On February 3, 2016, the members of the Eleventh Division of the CA, herein respondents Associate Justices Cecilia C. Librea-Leagogo, Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Melchor Q.C. Sadang, denied the MR of Morales. 15
Hence, the instant administrative complaint 16 filed by Morales against respondents for grave misconduct with prayer for disbarment.
After an assiduous study of the instant complaint, and the parties allegations and counter-allegations, We resolve to dismiss the same for lack of merit.
In A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, 17 the Court stated that in:
Administrative cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; judges of regular and special courts; and court officials who are lawyers are based on grounds which are likewise grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such other forms of breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers. 18
In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed to practice law. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. 19
Morales' main allegation in his administrative complaint is that the respondents acted with malice and bad faith in rendering the May 14, 2015 Decision 20 and February 3, 2016 Resolution. 21 Morales accuses that the respondents erred in giving credence to the affidavit-complaint of Pidlaoan, even if the latter failed to testify as to its contents before the RTC, as he cannot be contacted at his given address. Morales claim that he was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine Pidlaoan's complaint-affidavit. Further, Morales avers that the respondents erred in affirming the ODO-MOLEO's finding that he was guilty of serious dishonesty and meted out the penalty of dismissal from service, without considering his MR and supplemental MR since the criminal charges against him was ordered permanently dismissed by the RTC, as similarly ruled in the case of Larin v. The Executive Secretary, et al.22
In order to hold respondents liable, there must be substantial evidence that they committed an offense. 23 The burden of substantiating the charges in an administrative proceeding against court officials and employees falls on the complainant, herein Morales, who must be able to prove the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that respondents regularly performed their duties will prevail. 24
In the present case, other than Morales' accusation, We find nothing in the administrative complaint and in the records to sufficiently convince us that the respondents acted with malice and bad faith in issuing the May 14, 2015 Decision and February 3, 2016 Resolution. Morales has not shown, much less submitted, substantial evidence supporting his allegations.
A reading of the respondents' decision and resolution would readily show that Morales was not deprived of due process. The same supported by factual and legal basis. We quote herein the pertinent paragraphs of the May 14, 2015 Decision:
Indeed the evidence shows that petitioner was entrusted the sum of P89,000.00 as payment of inspection clearance and to convince Pidlaoan and MSC that he had paid said amount to the Treasurer's Office, he gave Pidlaoan the photocopy of OR No. 9986432 A. Later, MSC demanded of petitioner to surrender the original of the OR but petitioner did not comply. Upon investigation it was discovered that petitioner only paid P89.00 as shown in the duplicate and triplicate copies of the aforesaid OR on file with the Treasurer's Office. Clearly, it had been established by documentary evidence that petitioner committed an act of dishonesty.
xxx xxx xxx
It does not matter that petitioner's act of receiving money intended as payment for inspection clearance is not connected with the performance of his duties. Even if petitioner is not the cashier at the Treasurer's Office he can still be liable for dishonesty. x x x cDTACE
It is not true, as argued by petitioner, that there is no proof that he received the amount of P89,000.00. It is clear from the Affidavit of Complaint that the photocopy of OR No. 9986432 A originated from petitioner. It was precisely this document that petitioner used in convincing Pidlaoan and MSC that he had paid the amount of P89,000.00. Logically, this same evidence proves the allegation that he had, in fact, received the aforesaid amount which was intended as payment for the inspection clearance.
xxx xxx xxx
Obviously, the factual milieu of Larin does not resemble that of this case. Unlike in Larin, the act of which herein petitioner was administratively charged is clearly unlawful and irregular. Moreover, in Larin, the Supreme Court acquitted the petitioner therein upon a finding that the acts for which he was charged criminally were not unlawful and improper and they are the very same acts for which the petitioner was held administratively liable. In this case, petitioner was not acquitted upon a finding that the act for which he was administratively charged is not unlawful. x x x. 25
Clearly, the finding that Morales was guilty of serious dishonesty with penalty of dismissal from service, and the denial of his MR and supplemental MR by respondents, are supported by facts and applicable jurisprudence. The complainant's allegation of malice and bad faith against the respondent-justices are plainly unfounded.
But even granting arguendo that there were errors in respondents' findings, such are mere errors of judgment. 26 Morales should have filed an appeal or a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Unfortunately, Morales failed to do so and instead file this administrative complaint.
An administrative complaint leveled against justices must always be examined with a discriminating eye, for its consequential effects are, by their nature, highly penal, such that the respondents stand to face the sanction of dismissal and/or disbarment. The Court does not thus give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation. 27
From the foregoing, it is clear that the case should be dismissed for utter lack of merit. Morales failed to overcome his burden of proof to show that respondents committed an offense. The presumption that respondents regularly performed their duties will prevail.
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint filed by Engr. Ramil E. Morales against Hon. Cecilia C. Librea-Leagogo, Hon. Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Hon. Melchor Q.C. Sadang of the Court of Appeals is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit." Leonen, J., on official leave. (adv9)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-20.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Melchor Q.C. Sadang, concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier; id. at 129-140.
3.Id. at 166-167.
4.Id. at 73-74.
5.Id. at 54-56.
6.Id. at 69-72.
7.Id. at 95-97.
8.Id. at 98.
9.Id. at 99-117.
10.Id. at 129-140.
11.Id. at 141-156.
12.Id. at 165.
13.Id. at 157-163.
14.Id. at 165.
15.Id. at 166-167.
16.Id. at 1-20.
17. Court En Banc Resolution dated September 17, 2002 entitled Re: Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative Cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and Special Courts; and Court Officials Who are Lawyers as Disciplinary Proceedings against Them Both as Such Officials and as Members of the Philippine Bar.
18.Id.
19.Ylaya v. Atty. Gacott, Adm. Case No. 6475, January 30, 2013.
20.Rollo, pp. 129-140.
21.Id. at 166-167.
22. G.R. No. 112745, October 16, 1997.
23.Re: Missing Exhibits and Court Properties in Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Panabo City, Davao Del Norte, A.M. No. 10-2-41-RTC, February 27, 2013.
24.Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Villalon-Pornillos, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2183, July 7, 2009, 592 SCRA 36.
25.Rollo, 136-139.
26.Lazatin, et al. v. Hon. Desierto as Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 147097, June 5, 2009.
27.Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Villalon-Pornillos, supra note 24.