396 Phil. 4
MELO, J.:
According to Atty. Hagad, Denila sought a certificate of clearance of accountabilities from her in connection with his impending appointment as Clerk of Court of MCTC Valladolid-Pulupandan-San Enrique, Negros Occidental. She refused to issue the same because he could not account for and return to the court the records of Civil Case No. 07 entitled "Armando Soberano vs. Andres Guansing, et al." which were handed over to him by the late Judge Marietta Hobillo Aliño for the drafting of a Statement of Facts and research. She later on learned that during her maternity leave of absence, Jaime Dayot issued the clearance to Denila who was his first cousin, despite knowledge that Denila could not account for the missing case record. Atty. Hagad requested Atty. Baumann that Denila's transfer be held in abeyance, his salary be withheld pending clearance and that both cousins be sanctioned for their malfeasance.After a thorough examination of the record of the case, we are in complete agreement with the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator that:
In his Comment dated 11 December 1995, Denila claimed that the refusal of Atty. Hagad to issue him a clearance was unreasonable and arbitrary as she had no basis whatsoever to hold him responsible for the missing records since he was not the court's record custodian. He admitted though that Dayot issued him the clearance while the latter was officer-in-charge of the court so that his initial salary as new MCTC Clerk of Court could be released.
In a reply dated 15 January 1996 to the protestations of Denila, Atty. Hagad explained that the missing expediente was last known to be in Denila's possession. Although Denila was not assigned to keep records of cases of the court, this particular expediente was turned over to him for research upon instructions of Judge Alinio. Isabelita Tijon, Staff Assistant II and Clerk-in-Charge of Civil Cases of the Court issued a certification to this effect. The issuance of the clearance by Jaime Dayot to his cousin Denila therefore was clearly highly irregular since Dayot's alleged designation was not official.(pp. 69-70, Rollo.)
To constitute malfeasance, the act performed by the person must be one which he ought not to do. From the established facts, we find that Denila and Dayot committed malfeasance for which they cannot escape administrative accountability.The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.
Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended to the Honorable Court that:
(a) Ignacio Denila be FINED in the amount of FIVE THOSUAND PESOS (P5,000.00) for his negligence and for his cavalier attitude towards the recovery of a case record under his custody by refusing to help look for it;
(b) Jaime Dayot be SUSPENDED for two (2) weeks without pay for his precipitate haste in issuing such clearance without prior consultation with either Atty. Mutia Hagad or the Executive Judge; and
(c) both respondents be sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.(Ibid, p. 74.)
JUSTICE ELAPAÑO:Respondent Dayot's explanation is unsatisfactory. He already knew that Atty. Hagad refused to clear Denila of his accountability because of the latter's failure to account for the missing record of Civil Case No. 07, but still this respondent issued Denila the same. However, his pity for a relative is not an excuse for discourtesy to a superior. Being a public employee he may be of assistance to a specific individual, but when such aid frustrates and betrays the public trust in the system, it cannot and should not remain unchecked - the interests of the individual must give way to the accommodation of the public (Macalua vs. Tiu, Jr., 275 SCRA 320 [1997]). Consequently, for his act in overriding that of Atty. Hagad, his own superior officer, respondent Dayot could but be guilty of bad faith.So, that means that I am going to ask Judge Combong about this. In your testimony before Judge Catilo on June 10, 1997 when you said, "I issued a certification for humanitarian reason because he did not receive any salary and already been appointed as Clerk of Court of the MCTC Valladolid, San Enrique and Pulupandan." So your testimony today completely changes the tenor of your testimony because before you said you issued the clearance only for humanitarian reason?
DAYOT:Actually, I took pity on Mr. Denila, Your Honor.
JUSTICE ELEPAÑO:Yes, of course, but now you are saying that you signed because you asked Judge Combong if you would sign and he said yes?
DAYOT:Yes, Ma'am, but my main reason actually is that I took pity on him because we were all receiving our benefits for December, Your Honor, and he has nothing. His salary at the RTC was stopped because of his transfer.(tsn, Aug. 20, 1998, p. 45.)