| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
MOP, Bk 10, v.5, pt.2, 272
[ ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 387, July 12, 1976 ]
EXONERATING CITY TREASURER FLORENTINO A. CORBO OF MANDAUE CITY
This refers to the administrative case filed by residents of Tuburan, Cebu, against Florentino A. Corbo City Treasurer of Mandaue City, for alleged immorality.
The case stemmed from a letter-complaint filed with the Bureau of Public Schools by residents of the municipality of Tuburan, Cebu, against Areopagita Armas, a public school teacher at the Tuburan Central School, Tuburan District I, for allegedly “committing adulterous relation openly with a family man Florentino Corbo, presently Acting City Treasurer of Mandaue City, Cebu.” The Department of Finance, which was furnished a copy of the complaint, advised respondent thereof. Respondent vehemently denied the charge which was investigated by an investigating committee created for the purpose.
The investigating body set the hearing of the case on January 17 to 21, 1972. On January 17, 1972, respondent, with his counsel, appeared and manifested his readiness to proceed with the hearing, but none of the numerous complainants nor their counsel of record appeared notwithstanding due notices to them. Respondent moved for dismissal of the case against him for lack of interest on the part of the complainants and their counsel as shown by their absence, but the committee denied the motion to dismiss and reset the hearing to January 19, 1972, in order to allow sufficient time for the service of notices. Written notices, in telegraphic form, were sent to several complainants and their counsel as well as to Miss Armas. On January 19, 1972, when the hearing was resumed, not one of the complainants nor their counsel appeared, but Miss Armas was present. The respondent, through his counsel, instead of asking for the dismissal of the case for lack of interest on the part of complainants, chose to present evidence in his behalf with a view to clearing his name and reputation both as a private citizen and as a public official from any cloud of suspicion.
The respondent presented as his first witness, Atty. Filemon Mendoza, who testified as follows: that during the very long period of his association with the respondent, he knew him to be of good moral character and standing in Tuburan when the latter was then its municipal treasurer up to his transfer to Mandaue City; that when he was Chief of Police of Tuburan, there was never any instance that the respondent was brought to his office on a criminal charge; that, likewise, he knew Miss Armas to be of good moral character and standing in the community; that the charge that respondent is living in concubinage with her is not only false but also ridiculous because his wife and Miss Armas are co-teachers in the Tuburan Central Elementary School, with adjoining classrooms, and his wife never saw any immoral behavior of Miss Armas.
The second witness for the respondent, Miss Armas herself, declared the following: that she vehemently denied the accusation of immorality against her; that it could not have been possible for her to maintain illicit amorous relations with the respondent, as she and the wife of the respondent know each other very well and are good friends; that the allegation in the administrative complaint against her that she asked for sick leave (presumably on account of an alleged pregnancy) is a deliberate falsehood, as the documents she submitted to the committee would show that she actually applied for a study leave; and that her application was approved.
The third witness for the respondent, Mrs. Emeteria T. Monteban, the wife of the incumbent Chief of Police of Tuburan, declared the following: that she was corroborating the testimony of Atty. Filemon Mendoza that respondent and Miss Armas are both persons of good moral character and standing in Tuburan; that she never saw the respondent go to the house of Miss Armas; and that she could not miss noticing the presence of the respondent if he visited Miss Armas because she and Miss Armas are close neighbors.
The respondent, testifying in his own behalf, denied the charge of immorality against him and stated that the charge that he and Miss Armas had been maintaining illicit amorous relations was utterly false; that this charge against him was fabricated by the counsel for the complainants, Atty. Marcial Edillon, with the intention of extorting money from him; that the same Atty. Edillon had fabricated charges against other public officials and private persons, like the Municipal Judge, the Chief of Police and some councilors of Tuburan, and against the Chief and the Administrative Officer of the Emergency Hospital of Tuburan; that all these charges were dismissed or the respondents acquitted; and that as a result of this pernicious practice of Atty. Edillon in filing fabricated cases against public officials, Judge Pio Fernandes of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, in filing disbarment proceedings against him, stated in his complaint before the Supreme Court the following:
Done in the City of Manila, this 12th day of July in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-six.
By the President:
(Sgd.) JUAN C. TUVERA
Presidential Assistant
The case stemmed from a letter-complaint filed with the Bureau of Public Schools by residents of the municipality of Tuburan, Cebu, against Areopagita Armas, a public school teacher at the Tuburan Central School, Tuburan District I, for allegedly “committing adulterous relation openly with a family man Florentino Corbo, presently Acting City Treasurer of Mandaue City, Cebu.” The Department of Finance, which was furnished a copy of the complaint, advised respondent thereof. Respondent vehemently denied the charge which was investigated by an investigating committee created for the purpose.
The investigating body set the hearing of the case on January 17 to 21, 1972. On January 17, 1972, respondent, with his counsel, appeared and manifested his readiness to proceed with the hearing, but none of the numerous complainants nor their counsel of record appeared notwithstanding due notices to them. Respondent moved for dismissal of the case against him for lack of interest on the part of the complainants and their counsel as shown by their absence, but the committee denied the motion to dismiss and reset the hearing to January 19, 1972, in order to allow sufficient time for the service of notices. Written notices, in telegraphic form, were sent to several complainants and their counsel as well as to Miss Armas. On January 19, 1972, when the hearing was resumed, not one of the complainants nor their counsel appeared, but Miss Armas was present. The respondent, through his counsel, instead of asking for the dismissal of the case for lack of interest on the part of complainants, chose to present evidence in his behalf with a view to clearing his name and reputation both as a private citizen and as a public official from any cloud of suspicion.
The respondent presented as his first witness, Atty. Filemon Mendoza, who testified as follows: that during the very long period of his association with the respondent, he knew him to be of good moral character and standing in Tuburan when the latter was then its municipal treasurer up to his transfer to Mandaue City; that when he was Chief of Police of Tuburan, there was never any instance that the respondent was brought to his office on a criminal charge; that, likewise, he knew Miss Armas to be of good moral character and standing in the community; that the charge that respondent is living in concubinage with her is not only false but also ridiculous because his wife and Miss Armas are co-teachers in the Tuburan Central Elementary School, with adjoining classrooms, and his wife never saw any immoral behavior of Miss Armas.
The second witness for the respondent, Miss Armas herself, declared the following: that she vehemently denied the accusation of immorality against her; that it could not have been possible for her to maintain illicit amorous relations with the respondent, as she and the wife of the respondent know each other very well and are good friends; that the allegation in the administrative complaint against her that she asked for sick leave (presumably on account of an alleged pregnancy) is a deliberate falsehood, as the documents she submitted to the committee would show that she actually applied for a study leave; and that her application was approved.
The third witness for the respondent, Mrs. Emeteria T. Monteban, the wife of the incumbent Chief of Police of Tuburan, declared the following: that she was corroborating the testimony of Atty. Filemon Mendoza that respondent and Miss Armas are both persons of good moral character and standing in Tuburan; that she never saw the respondent go to the house of Miss Armas; and that she could not miss noticing the presence of the respondent if he visited Miss Armas because she and Miss Armas are close neighbors.
The respondent, testifying in his own behalf, denied the charge of immorality against him and stated that the charge that he and Miss Armas had been maintaining illicit amorous relations was utterly false; that this charge against him was fabricated by the counsel for the complainants, Atty. Marcial Edillon, with the intention of extorting money from him; that the same Atty. Edillon had fabricated charges against other public officials and private persons, like the Municipal Judge, the Chief of Police and some councilors of Tuburan, and against the Chief and the Administrative Officer of the Emergency Hospital of Tuburan; that all these charges were dismissed or the respondents acquitted; and that as a result of this pernicious practice of Atty. Edillon in filing fabricated cases against public officials, Judge Pio Fernandes of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, in filing disbarment proceedings against him, stated in his complaint before the Supreme Court the following:
”Atty. Marcial Edillon x x x in his practice of law in Cebu for the last two or three years x x x had filed more than 14 cases against Judges, Fiscals, lawyers and private parties. He is one of those few mortals who finds psychotic satisfaction in filing complaints and charges against Judges, Fiscals, lawyers and high officials of the Government even though such charges were baseless and groundless. x x x”.There being no evidence to support the charge and the respondent having established his innocence beyond doubt, as found and recommended by the investigating committee, City Treasurer Florentino A. Corbo is hereby exonerated therefrom.
Done in the City of Manila, this 12th day of July in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-six.
(Sgd.) FERDINAND E. MARCOS
President of the Philippines
President of the Philippines
By the President:
(Sgd.) JUAN C. TUVERA
Presidential Assistant