ANDRES MEDILO, JANEA VILLASIN, AND TWENTY-FIVE CO-SIGNERS, COMPLAINANTS, VS. MANUEL A. ASODISEN, LEGAL RESEARCHER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF SAN JUAN, SOUTHERN LEYTE, BRANCH 26, R…

The instant administrative case against respondent Manuel A.
Asodisen, Legal Researcher in Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court of San
Juan, Southern Leyte, is an offshoot of two separate letters of Andres Medilo,
together with 25 other complainants, and Janea Villasin, respectively dated
January 27, 1993 and February 23, 1993 and addressed to the Administrator of
this Court.

Said complainants charged respondent with (1) graft and
corruption, (2) non-payment of debts, (3) conduct unbecoming a public official,
and (4) malicious filing of cases. Complainant and his co-complainants submitted documentary evidence in
support of their allegations.^[1]
Complainant Janea Villasin, on the other hand, submitted her letter also with
supporting documentary evidence, claiming that respondent had been grossly
remiss in settling his debts to her and that, in order to evade his said
financial obligations, respondent resorted to the filing of a case against her
for qualified trespass to dwelling which, however, was later dismissed.^[2]

On March 25, 1993, Deputy Court Administrator Eutropio Migriño
required respondent to submit his comment on said charges. Respondent complied with a comment, dated
April 26, 1993, wherein he sought the dismissal of the aforesaid complaints.^[3]
Pursuant to the recommendation of Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L.
Suarez, the Court resolved on July 28, 1993 to refer the matter to Executive
Judge Leandro T. Loyao, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, of Maasin,
Southern Leyte for investigation, report and recommendation.^[4]

In an order dated August 26, 1993, Judge Loyao, Jr. designated
Clerk of Court Roman T. Galdo as commissioner to conduct the necessary hearings
in said administrative matter and to submit a written report of his findings
after investigation.^[5] Atty.
Galdo accordingly conducted the initial hearing of the case on September 27,
1993 and concluded the last hearing on January 13, 1994 with the presentation
of the last witness for respondent. On
March 7, 1994, Atty. Galdo submitted his written report of the investigation on
the matter to Judge Loyao, Jr. who, in turn, forwarded his confidential report
to the Court Administrator on March 10, 1994, together with the records of the
case.

The factual antecedents of the different charges against
respondent may be briefly summarized as follows:

On the charge that respondent committed acts of graft and
corruption, the record discloses that Angelito Crayo and Leo Veloso, both of
whom were then being separately prosecuted for criminal offenses before the
sala where respondent holds office, alleged in their respective affidavits that
respondent demanded monetary considerations from them in exchange for their
eventual acquittal in their
criminal cases. Both averred that they
were subsequently cleared in said cases by the trial court notwithstanding the
fact that they did not comply with the
demands of respondent.^[6]

Anent the charges of non-payment of debts, Janea Villasin
presented a copy of the complaint and the decision in her favor in Civil Case
No. R-840 which she initiated against her then lessee, the herein respondent,
for unlawful detainer and collection of rental arrearages, with damages. One Erlinda Gabrillos also tried to show
that respondent was indebted to her on account of unpaid expenses for food and
drinks. Still two other individuals, a
certain Melecio de la Peña and one Jaime Custodio, stated that respondent owed
them the amount of P1,000.00 and P200.00, respectively.^[7]

Manuel Asodisen’s being made a respondent in several criminal
investigations, ranging from illegal possession of firearms and violation of
the Anti-Fencing Law to grave oral defamation cases, were cited as grounds for
the charge of conduct unbecoming a public official. As for his alleged propensity for maliciously filing
unmeritorious cases, complainants referred to the cases that respondent hurled
at one Arlene Rosal, Sangguniang Bayan Secretary of San Juan, Southern Leyte;
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Andres G. Yu, Jr.; respondent’s own sister,
Lucrecia Asodisen-Calungsod; and Vice-Mayor Francisco H. Casera of San Juan,
Southern Leyte.^[8]

Except for respondent’s admitted failure to promptly settle his
financial obligations to Janea Villasin, for which the investigating judge
recommends the corresponding sanction, all the other charges against respondent
were found wanting of substantial evidence to buttress the same.^[9]

We have thoroughly reviewed the records and we agree with said
findings and the corresponding recommendation for the dismissal of said
complaints, under these considerations submitted by the investigating judge:

“On the charges of graft and corruption, the undersigned finds
the evidence adduced against the respondent lacking in substance.

“Crayo and Veloso executed affidavits to substantiate the
charge but only Crayo testified; Veloso did not. Crayo’s testimony is unreliable. He admits he did not intend to execute an affidavit against respondent
to support the administrative complaint against the latter but for Prosecutor
Andres Yu, Jr., apparently respondent’s (a)rchenemy, who advised him to do so.

“Respondent countered Crayo’s testimony with his own and
witness Eugenio Adanza. Crayo and
respondent talked in the presence of Adanza not about fixing his (Crayo’s) case
but because he requested respondent’s help in preparing his bond, as respondent
did in assisting his co-accused Ladero prepare his bail. Respondent’s witness, Leopoldo Selocio,
testified to having a conversation with Crayo wherein the latter admitted that
he made up his affidavit although (it was) not true just so he can file a case
against respondent. Crayo has
fraternized with jailguards Angub and Custodio.

“Moreover, the charges in (the) Crayo and Veloso affidavits,
which (were) incorporated (in) the complaint of jailguard Jaime Custodio
against respondent, were dismissed, in its criminal aspect, by the Ombudsman
for Visayas on 17 December 1993.

“As to Veloso’s affidavit-complaint in the instant case, the
undersigned finds it unmerit(orious).

“Veloso himself did not show up despite being subpoenaed to
testify to lend credence to his plaint.

“On the second charge of Conduct Unbecoming of a Public
Official due to respondent’s apparent willful failure to pay his just debts,
the undersigned faults him, even as he was able to obtain a withdrawal of the
complaint by Janea Villasin and to persuade Erlinda Gabrillos not to appear
during the investigation as she was already paid.

“Again, the enmity between respondent and Prosecutor Andres
Yu, Jr. surfaced. Villasin and
Gabrillos were prodded to sign the letter?manifesto against respondent by
jailguard Jaime Custodio, who with Prosecutor Yu, jailguards Leonardo Angub and
Ponciano Malubay were made respondents in a complaint filed by herein
respondent with the Office of the Secretary of Justice which was dismissed and
is presently being appealed to the Office of the President. This charge and countercharge between Yu and
his co-respondents on the one hand and herein respondent on the other were what
caused these consolidated complaints against respondent.

“The alleged P200.00 indebtedness of respondent to complainant
Jaime Custodio is considered an afterthought, not being incorporated as an
allegation in the manifesto and should therefore be removed from consideration. The commissioner correctly struck it off.

“The alleged indebtedness to Melecio de la Peña for P1,000.00
is being denied by respondent. De la
Peña could not substantiate it with any document of indebtedness.

“The admittedly long unpaid indebtedness of respondent to
Villasin and Gabrillos, and the apparent claims of Custodio and de la Peña,
even if unrelated to his work or are to be considered acts done by him outside
his work as a court employee, are erosions on his virtue of integrity and
honesty and he must, as a public servant, exhibit that highest sense of honesty
and integrity not only in the performance of his official duties but also in
his personal and private dealings with other people. He should be reprimanded. Villasin’s withdrawal of her complaint does not unmake respondent’s act
or willful inaction to pay his just obligation.

“On the two (2) complaints against him for Illegal Possession
of Firearm and of Violating the Anti-Fencing Law, both cases were initially
investigated by his nemesis, Prosecutor Yu, but respondent was able to persuade
Provincial Prosecutor Iñego Gorduiz to reassign the preliminary investigation
to Prosecutor Silvestre Maamo, Jr. who recommended prosecution of the illegal
possession case. Being matters which
are already of concern by the court, their administrative implications insofar
as (they) may tend to affect respondent’s conduct are better left undisturbed
until the outcome of the criminal prosecution.

“On the grave oral defamation cases filed against respondent
by Arlene Rosal and Victorino Rentusa, they have been dismissed by the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court on April 27, 1993 and June 25, 1993,
respectively. Besides, neither Rosal
nor Rentuza appeared during the investigation to substantiate the
administrative implication of the criminal charge, particularly affecting
respondent’s conduct as a public official.

“On the malicious filing of cases, respondent admits having
withdrawn his case against Arlene Rosal before the Ombudsman on a quid pro
quo with Rosal’s case against him aforementioned which was dismissed.

“His charge against archenemy Prosecutor Yu and herein
complainants-jailguards Jaime Custodio, Leonardo Angub and Ponciano Malubay for
Graft and Corruption, Dereliction of Duty and Betrayal of Public Trust before
the Office of the Secretary of Justice was dismissed for lack of merit, but
respondent is pursuing his appeal to the Office of the President.

“Malice in the filing of this case cannot as yet be
ascertained because of the pendency of the case on appeal.

“His other charge based on the same facts alleged before the
Department of Justice against the same respondents Yu and the jailguards this
time before the Ombudsman for the Visayas was also dismissed but respondent
filed a motion for reconsideration which is still pending resolution. No malice can as yet be determined. The undersigned notes that not one of these
series of charges and countercharges between respondent and Prosecutor Yu
before different forums was found meritorious (enough) to prosper.

“On the slander case he filed against his own sister Lucrecia
Asodisen-Calungsod for allegedly slandering him, his wife and his family, it
was dismissed and sister Lucrecia testified against him in the instant case to
get even. This, to the undersigned, is
more of a family squabble and cannot be considered administratively adverse to
respondent.

“Lastly, on the falsification case he filed against Vice-Mayor
Casera of San Juan, S. Leyte, no evidence has been submitted either to
establish or disprove the charge. The
undersigned considers it as a mere allegation without substance. Vice-Mayor Casera did not bother to testify
in the investigation to substantiate the alleged malice of respondent in filing
such case against him.”^[10]

We stress once again that public officers and employees must at
all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and lead
modest lives.^[11]
Those in the judicial branch of the Government have an equal and corresponding
obligation, as all the other officers and employees in government service, to
uphold to their heart’s passion these values considered as touchstones of a
good government.^[12]

Respondent, while he is here absolved of the unsubstantiated
allegations of wrongdoing on his part, has not been exactly true to his
commitments as a public servant. We
have repeatedly emphasized that the conduct required of court personnel must
ever be beyond reproach and must always be free from suspicion that may cast a
taint on the good image of the judiciary. Respondent, by his rather deliberate act of not promptly complying with
the terms of the judgment rendered against him in the unlawful detainer case
filed by complainant Janea Villasin, has exhibited a trait not worthy of his
status as an employee of a court of justice.

Furthermore, as observed by Judge Leandro T. Loyao, Jr.,
respondent’s involvement in a slew of controversies, either as complainant or
as respondent, such as the herein complaints against him, reveals and is
reflective of a norm of conduct
and personality that needs much rehabilitation. Thus, in the perceptive words of the investigating judge:

“The collective effort of complainants to try to ease
respondent out of office administratively, although unsubstantiated in a majority of the
charges, indicates lack of proper rapport of respondent with the public,
specifically, the community, or his work environment. When a prosecutor, jailguards, a vice-mayor, creditors, (and)
assorted complainants air their complaints, something must be wrong
somewhere. This matter is addressed to
the behavior and conduct of the respondent. And, it should warn him to be careful in his dealings with the community
always remembering that he is an officer of the court or at least a complement
of it.”^[13]

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaints filed against
respondent Manuel Asodisen are hereby dismissed for insufficiency of
evidence. Respondent is, however,
REPRIMANDED for his questionable failure to observe the rudiments of good
conduct in his dealings with the public, especially in the payment of just
debts, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar conduct in
the future shall definitely be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, and Puno, JJ., concur.

Mendoza, J., no part.

^[1]
Rollo, 13-15; Annexes 1 to 13.

^[2]
Ibid., 4; Annex A.

^[3]
Ibid., 11-12, 48-54.

^[4]
Ibid. 1-3, 95.

^[5]
Ibid., 100.

^[6]
Report of Investigation by Atty. Roman
T. Galdo, 2.

^[7]
Ibid., id.

^[8]
Ibid., 3.

^[9]
Confidential Report of Executive Judge
Leandro T. Loyao, Jr., 8-9.

^[10]
Ibid., 5-8.

^[11]
Arce vs. Arce, et al., A.M. No.
P-89-312, January 9, 1992, 205 SCRA 21.

^[12]
Re: Josefina V. Palon, A.M. No. 92-8-027-SC, September 2, 1992, 213 SCRA
219.

^[13]
Confidential Report of Executive Judge Leandro T. Loyao, Jr., 8.