[A.M. No. P-00-14-19. March 19, 2002]
OCAD vs. MAGNO
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your
information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 19
2002.
A.M. No.
P-00-14-19 (Office of the Court Administrator, complainant, vs. Magdalena G. Magno,
Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Jaen, Nueva Ecija, respondent.)
In a
Decision dated October 17, 2001, this Court found respondent Magdalena G.
Magno, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court of Jaen, Nueva Ecija, guilty of
dishonesty for demanding and accepting P4,000.00 from Leon Medestomas,
plaintiff in Civil Case No. 2338, as “grease” money for the implementation of
the writ of execution/demolition issued in said case. Thus, she was dismissed from the service.
Instead of
filing a motion for reconsideration of our Decision, respondent filed the
instant Motion For Leave seeking the reopening of the present administrative
case by allowing her to file an “answer” and “adduce additional evidence.” She
claims that: (a) “she thought she has not yet been administratively charged”
since “it was a comment, not an answer,
that was required of her in the En Banc
Resolution dated August 29, 2000;” (b) “(t)here are vital circumstances which
she overlooked and missed to mention in her comment, which if considered, would
alter or modify the adverse judgment;” and (c) thus “she was denied due
process” and “the right to be heard by counsel.
Respondent
asks that her Answer, which she already appended in her motion, filed by her
counsel Atty. Romeo A. Sadornas, be admitted.
She alleged there that “(t)he complaint for dishonesty has absolutely no
factual leg to stand on, as unmistakably shown by the following circumstance:”
1. Ernesto
A. Mendoza and Renante Y. Palor both Sheriffs in the Regional Trial Court of
Gapan City, stated in their joint-affidavits dated November 20, 2001 (Annex
“1”) that on April 23, 1999, respondent saw them in their office and inquired
from them how much would be spent in the execution of a writ of demolition to
be undertaken in Jaen, Nueva Ecija, and that on the same day, upon her request,
they made an estimate of the costs of execution in writing (Annex “1-A”)[1] and gave
it to her to be shown to the party concerned.
2. Judge
Tiburcio V. Empaynado, Jr., then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court
of Jaen, Nueva Ecija (Retired), declared in his affidavit dated November 19,
2001 (Annex “2”) that he remembered that in the last week of April, 1999,
respondent informed him that the sheriffs’ estimate of the expenses in the
execution of the subject writ of demolition was P4,000.00. He further stated that respondent asked him
“what to do in case he (Mr. Medestomas) should show up and already had the
money for the demolition expenses” as she was expecting him to see her any day
regarding the estimated expenses;” and that he “instructed her to refer the
matter immediately to the incoming acting Judge” since he will be on terminal
leave beginning May 3, 1999.
Respondent
contends that it is “clear that the P4,000.00 given by Leon Medestomas to (her)
was really for the estimated expenses to be incurred in the execution of the
writ of demolition without any intent to pocket the same and not grease money
as claimed by (him).”
We treat
respondent’s motion as one for reconsideration of our Decision.
The motion
is not meritorious.
Respondent’s
claim that she thought she has not yet been administratively charged since she
was merely required by this Court to “comment” and not to “answer” to the
complaint against her, is preposterous.
A reading of her comment, which consist of 10 pages with 8 documentary
exhibits, reveal that she knew very well that she was facing an administrative
charge. In fact, her comment contains
an exhaustive statement of the “Facts of the Case,” a full discussion of her
denial of the charge, an “Offer of Evidence” consisting of Exhibits “A,” “B,”
“C,” “D,” “E,” “F,” “G,” and “H,” and a prayer “(t)hat the case be dismissed
for lack of evidence and that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt”.
In fact her Comment is more exhaustive than her Answer.[2] She
adopted it as part of her Answer.
Verily,
contrary to her claim, she was not denied due process. Nor was she deprived of the assistance of
counsel. It bears stressing that the
right to counsel under the Bill of rights in the Constitution applies only in a
criminal case but not in an administrative investigation.[3] While
investigators conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a
criminal proceeding, the fact remains that under existing laws, a party in
administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of
the nature of the charges and of the respondent’s capacity to represent
himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person investigated with
counsel.[4] The
respondent has the option of engaging the services of counsel.[5] The right
to counsel is not always important in administrative investigation because such
inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit
disciplinary measure against erring public officers and employees with the
purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.[6]
In any
case, respondent anchors her defense on her posture that the P4,000.00 she
received from Leon Medestomas was the estimated expenses to be incurred in the
execution of the writ of demolition as suggested by the sheriffs. It was not “grease money”. However, the paper submitted by respondent
showing the sheriffs’ estimate of such expenses (Annex “1-A,” Answer or Annex
“C,” Comment) does not indicate the amount of P4,000.00. It merely states:
1.
Transportation of Demolition Team P600.00 more or less within the 4th District
of Nueva Ecija;
2. Payment
for each member of the demolition team at least P300.00 per day;
3. Food
Allowance of P50.00 per day;
4. Medical
expense/first aid allowance P50.00 each;
5. Other
sundry expense/miscellaneous – depending on the situation e.g. expense (food
and transportation) in securing police or military assistance.
The estimated
expense for each case shall be subject to court approval. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the
party making the deposit. A full report
shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return and the
sheriff expenses shall be taxed as cost against the judgment debtor (Rule 41,
Revised Rules of Court).”
Thus, respondent’s theory must
fail. Besides, as we ruled in our
Decision.
“x x
x. The rule (Sec. 9, Rule 141, Revised
Rules of Court) clearly requires that the party requesting the court process –
which in this case is a writ of demolition – shall pay the sheriff’s expenses
in the execution thereof, “in an amount estimated by the sheriff’s expenses in
the execution thereof, “in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court.”
The rule further requires that it is only
“(u)pon approval of said estimated expenses” that “the interested party shall
deposit such amount with the clerk of court and ex-oficio sheriff, who
shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the
process....
“In the
present case, respondent Magno claimed that she showed Leon Medestomas a
written estimated expenses for the implementation of the writ of demolition
prepared by the sheriffs in the amount of P4,000.00. This written estimate of expenses was not, however, confirmed by
Medestomas. Magno further asserted that
she prepared a receipt showing that the amount of P4,000.00 was paid to her by
Medestomas, but she was not able to give it to him as he hurriedly left her office. Again, Medestomas did not confirm this
allegation. We believe that the written
estimate of expenses allegedly prepared by the sheriffs, as well as the receipt
for P4,000.00 written by respondent, actually do not exist. These documents were NOT among those found
by the NBI Agents immediately after the entrapment of respondent in her
office. What the NBI Agents found in
her possession were the marked money bills of P4,000.00 and the unsigned Writ
of Demolition pertaining to Civil Case No. 2338, as states in paragraph (f) of
the NBI Report.
“But what
is more revealing is the undisputed fact that respondent asked and received the
P4,000.00 from Medestomas without
obtaining the approval of the trial court.
The provision of Section 9 is very clear that the amount of the
sheriff’s expenses as approved by the
court should be the amount which Medestomas shall deposit with the Clerk of
Court.
“Respondent
Magno’s utter failure to comply with the basic and simple requirements of
Section 9 of Rule 141 definitely bolster the veracity of Leon Medestomas’
accusation against her.
xxx”
WHEREFORE, respondent’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED. (Puno and
Vitug, JJ., are abroad on official business)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court