ATTY. EDWIN BETGUEN, ET AL., COMPLAINANTS, VS. DOMINGA P. MASANGCAY, RESPONDENT.

In this complaint for dishonesty, grave misconduct, conviction of
an offense and unauthorized absences, respondent is charged, primarily, with
concealing the records of C.A.-G.R. 10643 entitled “People of the
Philippines vs. Dominga P. Masangcay” for grave oral defamation wherein respondent Dominga P. Masangcay,
Clerk IV of the Office of the
Clerk of Court, RTC Cabarroguis, Quirino, is the accused/appellant.

Sometime in 1986, Jovita G. Cabanag and Luz Ancheta filed
separate criminal complaints for grave oral defamation against respondent with
the Municipal Trial Court of Cabarroguis, Quirino, docketed as Criminal Case
Nos. 901 and 902, respectively. After
joint trial, respondent was found guilty of intriguing against honor under
Article 364 of the Revised Penal Code and was imposed a fine of P200.00 and
ordered to indemnify complainants in the amount of P5,000.00 each. On appeal to the Regional Trial Court, the
conviction was affirmed in toto. The
Court of Appeals likewise affirmed respondent’s conviction. The records of the case (C.A.-G.R. No.
10643) were then remanded to the Clerk of Court of RTC, Quirino, on November
18, 1991, through registered mail with Registry Receipt No. P-5007. These records are the subject of the present
controversy.

On November 27, 1991, respondent Masangcay, allegedly received
from a certain Betty Nasto, an employee of the Post Office of Cabarroguis,
Quirino, a parcel from the Court of Appeals with Registry Receipt No. P-­5007,
which as later discovered, contained the records of C.A.-G.R. No. 10643. The fact of receipt by respondent is attested
to by the Acting Postmaster of the aforesaid town, Santiago Palaruan, and
evidenced by the signature of respondent on the registry book of the Post
Office. However, the records of the
case are nowhere to be found in the RTC of Quirino nor is there any record of its receipt by
respondent in the court’s logbook.

The loss of the records and its alleged receipt by respondent was
only discovered when complainants Cabanag and Ancheta, tired of awaiting the
outcome of the appeal, went to the Office of the Clerk of Court to inquire
about the status of their cases. There
being no record of the return of the records to the RTC, they were told to
inquire at the Court of Appeals. It was
upon such inquiry with the appellate court that they discovered that the records
of the case were already transmitted back to the RTC. After a thorough investigation, all evidence pointed to
respondent as the last person in possession of the records.

Complainant Atty. Betguen, Clerk of Court of RTC Cabarroguis,
Quirino, issued a memorandum to respondent requiring her to explain why she
should not be held administratively liable for concealment of the records. In her answer, respondent denied any
responsibility for the loss of the records.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid loss, the decision in the case of
“People of the Philippines vs. Masangcay” affirming the conviction of
respondent was promulgated on April 29, 1993, on the basis of certified copies
of the decision and resolution from the Court of Appeals. Weeks prior to such promulgation, respondent
had already been continuously absent from work. Despite a memorandum from Atty. Betguen requiring her to explain
why she should not be administratively charged for being absent without leave,
respondent failed to reply or report back for work. Even respondent’s husband, who is employed in the same Court as
sheriff, did not inform Atty. Betguen of respondent’s absence or her
whereabouts.

As a result, Atty. Betguen returned the salary checks of
respondent for April 15 and 26, 1993 to the Supreme Court with a request to
withhold all succeeding salaries.

On May 3, 1993, Executive Judge Gregorio Buenavista of RTC,
Cabarroguis, Quirino, informed the Court Administrator that respondent has
already been declared absent without leave (AWOL) and, coupled with her
conviction for a criminal offense, recommended her dismissal and/or separation
from service (Rollo, p. 17).

On May 17, 1993, Judge Buenavista received from respondent her
belated applications for sick leave from March 22 to May 31, 1993, daily time
records and medical certificate. These
documents were returned to respondent on the same day by Judge Buenavista with the instruction to indorse the same to
Atty. Betguen, her immediate supervisor, for appropriate action. Upon indorsement, Atty. Betguen likewise
returned said documents to respondent since she has already been declared AWOL
by Executive Judge Buenavista, together with a letter dated March 21, 1993 from
the Executive Judge transmitting an Indorsement from the Court Administrator requiring
her to answer the administrative charges filed by Atty. Betguen against
her. Respondent refused to receive both
letters.

On May 31, 1993, Judge Buenavista issued Administrative Order No.
01 for the temporary detail of respondent to the Municipal Trial Court of
Cabarroguis, Quirino effective June 1, 1993, upon the petition of the personnel
of the Office of the Clerk of Court. Such detail was opposed however by the personnel of the MTC of
Cabarroguis, on the ground that respondent’s detail to their office is
unacceptable, respondent being persona non grata.

When directed to comment on the complaints against her,
respondent admitted her conviction, not for grave oral defamation, but for
intriguing against honor. However, she
vehemently denied responsibility for the loss of the records of C.A.-G.R No.
10643. Although she did in fact receive
the parcel containing the records of the case, she claimed that she indorsed
the same to complainant clerk of court, Atty. Betguen. The latter, however, denied the
allegation. Respondent further
emphasized that she was not the only one receiving mails addressed to the
court. Furthermore, if anybody should
be held accountable for the loss of the records, it should be Atty. Betguen,
and not respondent, since he is the custodian of the court records. In her comment, respondent likewise imputed
several accusations against her co-employees and even against her
superiors. Respondent maintains that
the criminal case for defamation as well as an administrative case for
misconduct was brought by Cabanag and Ancheta against her upon the instigation
of Estrella V. Magat, Court Interpreter of Branch 31, Cabarroguis RTC. She further charged Judge Carlos T. Aggabao,
Atty. Betguen, Magat and one Elsa V. Manuel, Cash Clerk of the same court, with
pressuring Judge Bannuar C. Bon-golan, MTC Cabarroguis, Quirino to promulgate
the judgment of conviction against respondent, even if the same was only a
xerox copy. All of the parties referred
to denied the accusations of respondent for being false and baseless.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that respondent
categorically admits having been convicted by the trial court of the crime of
intriguing against honor. Under Sec. 22
par. (e) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing E.O. 292 (Administrative Code of
1987), conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, being a grave offense,
is punishable by separation from service.

Article 364 of the Revised Penal Code defines “intriguing
against honor” as any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to
blemish the honor and reputation of a person. This felony undoubtedly falls under the coverage of crimes involving moral turpitude, the latter term having
been defined as “an act of baseness, vileness, depravity in the private
and social duties which a man owes his fellow man, or to society in general,
contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and
man, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty and good morals”
(Tak Ng vs. Republic of the Philippines, 106 Phil. 727 [1959]).

Respondent, having been found guilty of willfully and maliciously
causing intrigue against a person for the purpose of tainting his honor and
reputation, is consequently guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude. On this score alone, her dismissal from the
service is warranted.

However, the crux of the case involves the charges of Dishonesty
and Gross Misconduct in the service committed by concealing the records of the
case entitled “People vs. Dominga Masangcay” which respondent allegedly
received upon its transmittal from the Court of Appeals. An assiduous review of the records of this
case establishes respondent’s guilt of the aforesaid charges.

Betty Nastor, an employee of the Post Office of Cabarroguis,
Quirino attests to the fact that she personally handed the parcel containing
the records of the case to respondent (Rollo, p. 4). Of even greater weight, respondent’s signature, which she admits
as her own, appears on line 20 of the record of registered letters of the Post
Office of Cabarroguis (Rollo, p. 39). No evidence could be stronger to prove the fact of respondent’s receipt
of the records than her own signature as well as the clear affirmation of the
postal clerk who delivered the parcel.

It should be noted that before respondent was confronted with her
signature on the registry book, she absolutely denied receiving the parcel
containing the missing records, even arguing that she is not the only one
receiving mail matter of the court. After the registry book was presented to her, however, she altered her
posture and admitted having received the records but denied having opened or
concealed the same. Respondent avers
that she did not know that the parcel contained the records of her personal
case. She affirms that after receiving
the same, she indorsed the records to her immediate superior, one of the herein
complainants Atty. Betguen.

Respondent is not credible when she claims that she was unaware
that the parcel contained the records of her appealed case. The Court of Appeals places the docket
number of the appealed case being remanded outside the mailed parcel for
control purposes. Having been employed
with the court since 1983, respondent is presumed to know this procedure. In fact, since part of her duties included
receiving and recording mail matter of the court, it is incumbent upon
respondent to know of such practice. Having appealed the case herself,
it was natural for respondent to know the docket number of her case and
thereafter to monitor the arrival of her case upon its remand from the
appellate court. Respondent had every
opportunity for committing the act of concealing the records of her case having
acknowledged receipt of the same from the post office.

Respondent insists that she indorsed the records to Atty.
Betguen. However, the allegation
remained unsubstantiated as respondent presented no evidence to support the
same. On the other hand, it is
respondent herself who has an evident motive, insofar as it would benefit
herself, to keep and conceal the records affirming her conviction. Respondent was convicted of committing a
criminal offense by the MTC. On appeal
to the RTC, her conviction was affirmed. Naturally, respondent would try to do everything she can to avert the
promulgation of her conviction, should she find that the same was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals. There being a
motive, and finding an opportunity to carry out her intention, respondent
failed to resist the impulse and concealed the records in order to keep the
affirmation of her conviction a secret.

The fact that it was respondent who received and concealed the
records of the case was therefore sufficiently established by substantial
evidence. Substantial evidence has been
defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion (Tolentino vs. Court of Appeals, 150 SCRA 25 [1987];
Biak-na-Bato Mining Co. vs. Tanco, Jr., 193 SCRA 323 [1991]). This is the quantum of proof required in an
administrative proceeding, and as far as the case at bar is concerned, the same
has undoubtedly been satisfied.

Respondent’s actuation in concealing the records of her case
amounts to dishonesty and gross misconduct in office warranting her dismissal
from service under Section 22 (a) and (c), Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing
Book V of E.O. No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987). Being in charge of court records for years, respondent was well
aware that court records are confidential documents which may not be taken out of court without proper authority and
without the necessary safeguards to ensure their confidentiality and integrity
(Mirasol vs. Dela Torre, 195 SCRA 667 [1991]). But in blatant disregard of such rule of confidentiality, respondent
concealed the records of her conviction, in an obvious attempt at
self-preservation.

For committing the act complained of, respondent displayed gross
or serious misconduct in office deserving of the extreme penalty of
dismissal. Misconduct in office
warranting removal must have a direct relation to and be connected with the
performance of official duties amounting either to maladministration or
willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office;
a transgression of some established and definite rule or action, an unlawful
behaviour or gross negligence by the public officer; or the acts complained of
were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law or were in
persistent disregard of well-known legal rules (Amosco vs Magro, 73 SCRA 107
[1976] citing Buenaventura vs. Benedicto, 38 SCRA 71, In re: Horilleno, 43 Phil. 212). In the present case, respondent abused her
position as Clerk IV of the Office of the Clerk of Court in charge of receiving
court records and documents, in order to carry out her intention to thwart the
promulgation of the decision convicting her. Respondent feigns innocence of the act complained of by passing the
blame to herein complainant, Atty. Betguen. Respondent avers that being the custodian of the records, the liability
for the loss of the subject records should fall upon Atty. Betguen.

The argument has no merit. Atty. Betguen, overall custodian of court records in his capacity as
Clerk of Court, could not be faulted for the loss of the records as alleged by
respondent. Respondent had direct
control over the documents and records being transmitted to the court, who
violated the established procedure to be followed upon receipt of court
documents. As Atty. Betguen stated in
his letter to respondent dated January 27, 1993:

“It has been the usual practice in our office, the Office of
the Clerk of Court, that whenever a mail or parcel is delivered, the
undersigned is immediately informed thereof and a corresponding acknowledgement
receipt is signed by the undersigned. Thereafter, our docket clerk, Mrs. Elsa V. Manuel will enter the
judgment of the higher court in the corresponding docket book if the parcel
happens to be a case record or else, the Clerk IV will record all other mail
matters in a separate logbook. There
appears no entry in the docket book of the judgment in C.A.-G.R. No. 10643 and
neither has the undersigned signed any acknowledgement receipt of the said
record. Furthermore, all records of
appealed cases remanded to this court contained the notation of the title or
number of the said case on the face of the envelop. Being the receiving person and the interested party, being the
accused in said case, it is highly unbelievable that you did not know the
whereabout (sic) of the delivered mail matter as firmly alleged by you (Rollo,
p.7).”

But as borne by the records of this case, respondent never
informed her superiors as to her receipt of the parcel containing the missing
records. Neither did she indorse the
same to Atty. Betguen according to established procedure in the office. In fact, as an added safeguard against being
discovered, respondent also concealed the records of Civil Case No. 217
entitled “Cirilo Bagaoisan vs. Fulgencio Factoran, et al.”, which
arrived together with the records of her appealed case. The parcel containing the records of Civil
Case No. 217 was later discovered by Normita P. Magno, Clerk III of the same
office, in an old cabinet, opened and the acknowledgement receipt unsigned by
Atty. Betguen. The records of CA.-G.R.
10643, however, were never found.

Respondent is also being charged herein for Unauthorized Absences
under Section 22 (q) of the same Omnibus Rules, covering the period March 18 to
May 31, 1993.

Although respondent does not deny her absences, she averred that
she filed the necessary applications for leave. The records however show that her applications for sick leave
were not only belatedly filed, they were
also addressed not to her immediate supervisor, Atty. Betguen, but to the
Executive Judge, in patent violation of civil service rules and regulations.

Neither will the medical certificate submitted by respondent
excuse her absence. The certificate
shows that respondent was treated for sudden chest pains on March 22,
1993. Respondent has been absent since
the 18th of March up to the end of May, 1993. It is quite obvious that an unexcusable two and a half month absence
will not be so easily written off by the mere act of presenting a medical
certificate involving one day of treatment. Moreover, the attending physician who issued the certification, Dra.
Mila D. Garcia, patently denied that she advised respondent to rest for three
(3) months. If at all, the medical
certificate will serve to excuse only her absence from work on the actual day
of her consultation on March 22, 1993. Under the aforementioned rules, unauthorized absences are punishable by
suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense, and the
penalty of dismissal for the second offense. Considering, however, that respondent is herein found to be guilty of
more serious violations meriting the penalty of dismissal, such suspension has
now become superfluous. Moreover, under
the same Omnibus Rules aforecited, it is provided that “if the respondent
is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty imposed should be
that corresponding to the most serious charge or count and the rest may be
considered aggravating” (Sec. 17, Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing
Book V of E.O. No. 292). From the
foregoing, it is apparent that the moral propensity of respondent to commit
violations of established rules and regulations is not to be discounted. Considering the gravity of the charges
levelled against her, the fact that even the personnel of the MTC of
Cabarroguis consider her a persona non grata and more
importantly, the fact that respondent has been previously found guilty by this
Court of violating Administrative Order No. 3 by not raffling an Extrajudicial
Foreclosure of Mortgage, there is little left to be said of respondent’s moral
fitness to remain in the service.

Finally, it is quite ironic and unfortunate for respondent that
through the commission of the acts complained of, she only succeeded in
aggravating her dilemma. Where at the
onset, her only predicament was her conviction for the crime of intriguing
against honor, her malicious intent to frustrate the ends of justice mired her even more
into a deeper hole from which there is now neither reprieve nor escape.

WHEREFORE, respondent Dominga P. Masangcay is hereby DISMISSED from
the service with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and
retirement benefits and disqualification to hold office in any public office
including government-owned or controlled corporations. Respondent’s dismissal is without prejudice
to any other liability.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,
Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, and
Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.