ROQUE R. MARTINEZ, MARIA ELENA M. FELIPE, ROBERT R. MIÑANO, ROSALINDA G. MACASA AND CIRIACO D. MARIVELES, JR., COMPLAINANTS, VS. NORVELL R. LIM, SHERIFF III, REGIONAL TRIAL COUR…

Martinez versus Lim

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by five employees of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon against Norvell Lim, Sheriff III of the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Branch 81. The complainants charge him with two interrelated offenses: grave misconduct, arising from a letter he sent reminding their office of its turn to lead the flag ceremony, and violation of Presidential Decree Number 26, the franking privilege law, for mailing copies of his counter-affidavit without paying postage. The case matters because it draws a clean line between a lawful reminder issued in the discharge of a duty and a penalized misuse of the franking privilege, and because it fixes who may enjoy that privilege.

Procedural History

The complainants first filed their administrative complaint for grave misconduct in the Office of the Ombudsman. They later filed a second complaint, this time for violation of Presidential Decree Number 26. The Ombudsman dismissed the second complaint for lack of probable cause, but referred the administrative aspect of both complaints to the Office of the Court Administrator. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended dismissal of the grave misconduct charge for lack of merit, and recommended a fine of one thousand pesos for the violation of Presidential Decree Number 26. The matter then came before the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator but modified the penalty.

Facts

On March 11, 2002, the respondent sheriff sent a letter to Arsenio Almaddin, officer-in-charge of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Romblon. The letter stated that it was the turn of that office to lead the flag ceremony at eight o'clock in the morning for the month of March 2002, but that on that morning the ceremony was not done because none of the personnel of the prosecutor's office was present. The letter expressed the hope that all the personnel would be seen participating in the flag ceremony every Monday morning and Friday afternoon.

The five complainants, all employees of the prosecutor's office, then filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct. They asserted that the letter portrayed them as unpatriotic Filipinos, tarnished their reputation as public officers, and cast dishonor, disrepute, and contempt on their persons. The respondent explained that, in the absence of the presiding judge, he was the administrative officer-in-charge of the Hall of Justice, and that it was his duty to require attendance at the flag ceremony. He denied any ill will against the complainants.

The complainants then filed a second complaint, charging violation of Presidential Decree Number 26, because the respondent had not paid for postage stamps when he mailed copies of his counter-affidavit to them. They argued that the mailed matter neither involved a court process nor was connected to the conduct of judicial proceedings. The respondent asserted that the allegations were baseless, and the Ombudsman indeed dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of grave misconduct for sending the March 11, 2002 letter reminding the prosecutor's office of its turn to lead the flag ceremony.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating Presidential Decree Number 26 for mailing copies of his counter-affidavit without paying postage.

Applicable Provisions

Section 18 of Republic Act Number 8491 provides:

Section 18. All government offices and educational institutions shall henceforth observe the flag-raising ceremony every Monday morning and the flag lowering ceremony every Friday afternoon. The ceremony shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing or singing of the Philippine National Anthem.

This provision establishes the duty to observe the flag ceremony, which the respondent was enforcing when he sent the challenged letter.

Supreme Court Circular Number 62-2001 provides:

All Executive Judges shall supervise the holding of the flag raising and flag lowering ceremonies in their respective Hall of Justice buildings or courthouses and shall ensure the attendance of all judges and court personnel in the rites.

This circular supplies the authority under which the respondent, as administrative officer-in-charge of the Hall of Justice, acted in reminding the employees to attend.

Presidential Decree Number 26 provides:

(1) Judges of the Courts of First Instance, Circuit Criminal Courts, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, Courts of Agrarian Relations, Court of Industrial Relations, Military Tribunals and City and Municipal Courts, may transmit in the mail, free of charge, all official communications and papers directly connected with the conduct of judicial proceedings.

(2) The envelope or wrapper of the privileged mail matter shall bear on the left upper corner the name, official designation and station of the official sending such mail matter and on the right upper corner, the words: "Private or unauthorized use to avoid payment of postage is penalized by fine or imprisonment or both."

This decree defines the franking privilege and limits it to judges and to papers directly connected with judicial proceedings, which is the provision the respondent is found to have violated.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no grave misconduct. Misconduct implies wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment; an act that is corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law or a persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. The Court found that the March 11, 2002 letter was courteously written, that the respondent neither used offensive language nor insinuated that the complainants were unpatriotic, and that he was merely expressing concern so that a similar incident would not happen again. As administrative officer-in-charge of the Hall of Justice, he was duty-bound to remind the employees to attend the flag ceremony. Thus, there was no misconduct on his part.

On the second issue, the Court agreed that the respondent violated Presidential Decree Number 26. It relied on its earlier ruling that the franking privilege granted by the decree extended only to judges and referred to official communications and papers directly connected with the conduct of judicial proceedings. The respondent was not a judge, and the mailed matter, his counter-affidavit, was not related to the discharge of judicial functions. He was therefore guilty of the violation.

Doctrine

First, misconduct implies wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment; an act that is corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law or a persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. A courteous reminder issued in the performance of a duty, without offensive language or imputation of bad faith, is not misconduct.

Second, the franking privilege under Presidential Decree Number 26 extends only to judges and covers only official communications and papers directly connected with the conduct of judicial proceedings. A sheriff who mails a private or personal matter, such as his own counter-affidavit, using the free postage privilege, violates the decree and is liable for a fine.

Disposition

The complaint for grave misconduct was dismissed for lack of merit, but the respondent was found guilty of violating Presidential Decree Number 26 and fined five hundred pesos, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the franking privilege belongs only to judges and only for papers directly connected with judicial proceedings, so a sheriff who mails his own counter-affidavit free of postage violates Presidential Decree Number 26. Examiners like to use this case to test the scope of the franking privilege and to distinguish misconduct, which requires wrongful intention, from a mere error of judgment.