549 Phil. 5; 104 OG No. 20, 3610 (May 19, 2008)
For resolution is an administrative
complaint
[1]
filed by Marlito R. Robles against Sherwin M. Baloloy, Process Server,
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 130, Caloocan City, for Usurpation
of Authority and Trespass to Dwelling, and against Lorna M. Ramores,
Utility Worker, Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), RTC, Caloocan City
for Perjury and Falsification of Public Document amounting to
Misconduct in Office.
According to complainant, respondent
Baloloy, together with Norvel J. Flores and a group of men, arrived at
their residence on 5 July 2006 at around eight o’clock in the morning
to conduct a demolition operation. Another group also arrived in a
white SWAT vehicle and was armed with a demolition permit which was not
shown to complainant. When complainant asked if the group had a court
order authorizing the demolition, Baloloy allegedly replied in the
affirmative showing complainant a piece of paper without allowing the
latter to examine the same. When asked of his identity, Baloloy
allegedly introduced himself as a sheriff from the RTC of Caloocan
City. Despite their agreement to discuss the matter at the barangay
hall, Baloloy proceeded to complainant’s house and demanded that the
occupants vacate the premises immediately as the demolition would soon
be started. Respondent Baloloy allegedly did the same to the occupants
of other houses nearby. It was only when complainant threatened to
call the media that the demolition crew left the premises.
As
regards respondent Ramores, complainant alleges that he saw her with
another woman at the demolition site, clad in office uniform and
talking to some members of the demolition crew.
Upon inquiry
with the RTC of Caloocan City, complainant learned that Baloloy is not
a sheriff but a process server detailed at the OCC,RTC and that Ramores
is a utility worker in the same office. He further discovered from
Atty. Avelinda Dabalos of the OCC, that respondents had no right to
even be present at complainant’s residence as there was no pending case
filed against complainant or his family. Ramores even made it appear
in her daily time record (DTR) that she was in the office from 7:19
a.m. to 4:46 p.m. on the day of the attempted demolition.
[2]In her
Comment
[3] dated
30 August 2006, respondent Ramores denies the charges against her and
claims that complainant, not being an injured party, has no personality
to file the instant complaint against her. According to her, she was
the one who punched her DTR on the day in question so it cannot be said
that she falsified it. While she admits to being present at the site,
she avers that she was there only to bring money to her son, Baloloy.
She was there only for a brief moment and with the permission of the
officer-in-charge of the OCC who even asked her to buy index cards for
the court. She alleges that her leaving the office was properly
documented on the daily attendance sheet, which practice is allowed
under Civil Service rules, specifically Book V of Executive Order No.
292, as amended.
In his Reply
[4] to Ramores’s Comment, complainant counters that
he has personality to file the instant complaint as a taxpayer and as
an injured party because respondents sought to demolish his house. He
accuses Ramores of lying as to the reason why she was at the demolition
site. He allegedly saw her there from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. which
cannot be considered a brief stay. If indeed she properly documented
her attendance, she failed to present copies of these documents as
proof. Complainant adds that when he talked to Atty. Darwin Cañete,
respondents’ immediate superior, he cannot remember the latter telling
him that Ramores’s leaving the office premises was in fact with
permission. Instead, Atty. Cañete asked complainant to settle the
matter with respondents, giving complainant the impression that Atty.
Cañete would like to cover up the behavior for his subordinates.
For
his part, Baloloy filed a Counter-Affidavit
[5] previously submitted to Assistant
City Prosecutor Ethel Kathleen Tugade in relation to the criminal
complaints filed by complainant against him for Trespass to Dwelling
and Usurpation of Authority. He prayed that the same be adopted as his
Comment to the instant administrative complaint.
[6]Baloloy vehemently denies
the charges against him. He avers that Norvel Flores is the
attorney-in-fact of Ms. Andrea Demeza, the owner of the property being
illegally occupied by complainant and his family. Said property had
been previously inspected by the Office of the Building Official and
reported to be a threat to the safety of the occupants and other
residents in the area due to its dilapidated condition. Upon
application of Flores, a demolition permit
[7] was issued by the Building Official
pursuant to the National Building Code of the Philippines. The illegal
occupants were allegedly given notice and demand letters to vacate the
premises. Flores, being his friend and former neighbor, sought
Baloloy’s help in taking care of the needs of the demolition crew
during the demolition. When Baloloy arrived at the demolition site,
complainant and Flores were already engaged in a heated argument,
leaving the demolition crew idle. In the hope of settling the matter
amicably as complainant’s behavior was already rude and threatening,
Baloloy allegedly suggested that they discuss the matter in the
barangay hall. Complainant agreed to this suggestion. However, Baloloy
noticed complainant head home and began to put up barricades. This
angered Flores who then ordered his men to start the demolition. At
this juncture, Baloloy claims he felt the need to make a final plea to
the occupants to vacate the premises and to bring with them their
belongings so that no one will get hurt during the impending
demolition. He, however, denies physically entering complainant’s
house. Complainant then allegedly rushed inside his house and demanded
to be shown a court order. Baloloy alleges that he explained to
complainant that there is no court order but only a demolition permit
and the building will be demolished as a dangerous structure. He
further explained that he is from the RTC but that it is his father who
is the sheriff and not him when complainant asked,
“sine-sheriff na ba kami, saan ang court
order?”[8] Complainant allegedly started rousing the other
illegal occupants to fight off the demolition crew so that some of them
picked up things to throw at the demolition crew, forcing the
demolition crew to withdraw from the premises. Seeing that things
could get worse, Baloloy claims sending a text message to his mother,
Ramores, to inform her that he cannot join her for lunch as they had
not yet proceeded with the demolition. Ramores then replied that she
would come over to see what was going on and to say hello to Flores’s
wife to whom she was godmother. Ramores allegedly stayed for only ten
minutes. Flores later decided to defer the demolition as complainant
continued his threats and invectives.
Baloloy argues that he
could not be guilty of usurpation of authority because at no time did
he represent himself as a sheriff nor did he perform any task related
to the duties of a sheriff especially since the demolition was to be
conducted under the National Building Code. He claims he was not even
in his office uniform at that time. Neither could he be found guilty
of trespassing because he never stepped inside the subject building and
his presence at the premises was with the knowledge and permission of
the owner of the property,. He then prays for the dismissal of the
complaint for being baseless, fabricated and self-serving.
In
its Report
[9]
dated 5 February 2007, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
found that the evidence adduced by complainant is insufficient to hold
respondents liable. It observed that complainant should have at least
presented corroborative evidence such as affidavits of witnesses to
prove his allegations. However, the OCA recommended that respondents
be reprimanded for being at the demolition site. According to the OCA,
such act gave the appearance of impropriety and falls short of the
judicial standard of impartial service, violating the norm of public
accountability. Observed the OCA, thus:
Respondents,
however, deserve strong admonition from this Court for their admitted
act of being present at the site where the demolition was to be
conducted with the end in view of assisting and helping a private
citizen carry through a demolition activity. Although respondent
Ramores claims that she just went to the site to give money to her son,
the same is belied by the very assertion of respondent Baloloy that she
went there “to see what is going on and to say hello to
Maribeth Flores, to whom she was the godmother at her wedding
(sic).” Indeed, respondents’ act falls short of the exacting
standards of impartial service in the judiciary required of all court
employees.
x x x x
As such, employees of the
judiciary must be wary, and should “tread carefully” when assisting
other persons even if such assistance sought would call for the
exercise of acts unrelated to their official functions. Such
assistance should not in anyway [sic] compromise the public’s trust in
the justice system. Personal interests, i.e., pecuniary benefit in the
transaction, must give way to the accommodation of the public. This is
enunciated in the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees (RA No. 6713) which aims to promote a high
standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service.
The respondent is hereby enjoined to observe such conduct. x x
x
Hence, the OCA submitted the following recommendations:
Respectfully
submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our
recommendation that the instant complaint be
RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter and
respondents be REPRIMANDED for their acts that
compromised the public’s trust in the justice system, with a
STERN WARNING that commission of similar act in the
future will be dealt with more severely.
We adopt the recommendations of the OCA.
It
is well-settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has
the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the
complaint.
[10]
In the instant case, complainant failed to substantiate his
accusations, as his bare allegations do not suffice.
Nevertheless,
we hold respondents liable for their unauthorized presence at the
demolition site. While they assert the legality of the attempted
demolition and the rationale behind their presence at the subject
premises, they failed to present proof that they were authorized to
leave their respective posts on the day and time in question.
Furthermore, the OCA correctly observed that respondents’ presence
thereat, although seemingly harmless, is in fact unnecessary and
imprudent. What is more, respondents gave conflicting explanations as
to why Ramores was at the demolition site, which circumstance reflects
a lack of forthrightness on the part of one or both of them.
Respondents
should remember that the image of the courts as a true temple of
justice is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men
and women who work thereat.
[11] Hence, their conduct must at all times be
characterized by propriety and decorum and above all else, be above
suspicion so as to earn and keep the respect of the public for the
judiciary.
[12]
Furthermore, their unauthorized absence from their posts during regular
office hours robs the Court of their time and effort best reserved for
public service. Such unofficial absences however short may interrupt
the smooth flow of government function thus rendering public service
inutile.
WHEREFORE, the recommendation
of the Office of the Court Administrator is
APPROVED. Respondents Sherwin M. Baloloy, Process
Server, and Lorna M. Ramores, Utility Worker, both of the Regional
Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Caloocan City are hereby
REPRIMANDED for their acts that compromised the
public’s trust in the justice system. They are
STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be
dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio Morales and
Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur
[1]Rollo, pp. 6-14 with annexes.
[2]As per Certification
by Atty. Darwin G. Cañete;
rollo, p. 14.
[3]Id. at 19-21.
[4]See OCA Report, id. at 2-3.
[5]Id. at 27-39 with annexes.
[6]As per respondent’s Manifestation dated 16 October 2006; id. at 26.
[7]Id. at 39.
[8]Id. at 31.
[9]Id. at 1-5.
[10]Morales, Sr.
v. Judge Dumlao, 427 Phil. 56, 62 (2002).
[11]Gutierrez,
et al. v. Quitalig, A.M. No. P-02-1545, 2 April 2003, 400
SCRA 391, 398, citing
Re: Administrative Matters OCA IPI No.
97-228-P (Santelices v. Samar); and OCA IPI No. 97-383-P (Santelices v.
Samar), 15 January 2002, 373 SCRA 78.
[12]Rural Bank
of Francisco F. Balagtas (Bulacan), Inc. v. Pangilinan, 307
SCRA 725 (1999);
Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. SDC-97-2-P,
24 February 1997, 268 SCRA 628, 637, citing
Apaga v.
Ponce, 245 SCRA 233 (1995).
[13]Macalua v. Tiu,
Jr., A.M. No. P-97-1236, 11 July 1997, 275 SCRA 320,
327