IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE ON MANUEL Z. UBALDO, STATE PROSECUTOR, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, (PRESENTLY DETAILED AT THE KALOOKAN CITY PROSECUTION OFFICE)

In these consolidated cases (Adm. Case Nos. 98-0022-FS and
98-0011-FS), State Prosecutor Manuel Z. Ubaldo, presently detailed at
the Kalookan City Prosecution Office, is administratively charged with
(a) corruption and grave misconduct, and (b) conduct unbecoming of a
public official.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 98-0022-FS

This case arose from the criminal cases for illegal recruitment and
estafa filed by Zenaida Rendon against Minda Alvarez, docketed as
Criminal Cases Nos. C-53388-89 (98) and filed with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Kalookan City, Branch 121, wherein Ubaldo is the trial
prosecutor.

During the trial of the said cases, Ubaldo informed Rendon that he
would be acting as her lawyer and, as such, solicited the corresponding
attorney’s fees. On April 13, 1998, Rendon gave Ubaldo the amount of
Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) by way of attorney’s fee. A day later,
Rendon again gave Ubaldo the same amount of P500.00.

In a meeting held at the DOJ Prosecution Office in Kalookan City,
Ubaldo advised Rendon not to pursue her cases against Alvarez and
instead accept her (Alvarez) offer of settlement consisting of Fifteen
Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) cash and twelve (12) postdated checks in the
amount of Eight Thousand Pesos (P8,000.00) each. At first, Rendon
declined the offer. However, upon persistent prodding of Ubaldo, the
said offer was finally accepted by Rendon.

On April 21, 1998, while the court was on recess, Ubaldo approached
Rendon and demanded his share in the monetary settlement of the cases.
This was overheard by Teresita Ramos and Dr. Corazon Gigantana,
companions of Rendon, and by Judge Adoracion Angeles of the RTC,
Kalookan City, Branch 121, who advised Rendon to file an administrative
case against Ubaldo.

On July 21, 1998, Judge Angeles addressed a letter to the Secretary
of Justice reporting, among other things, the extortion attempt of
Ubaldo. Attached therewith are copies of the sworn statements of Rendon,
Ramos and Gigantana, all accusing Ubaldo with attempted extortion. On
the basis thereof, the Secretary of Justice directed the City Prosecutor
of Kalookan City to investigate Ubaldo’s alleged illegal exaction of
money.

In his letter dated August 7, 1998, Kalookan City Prosecutor Ramon
Rodrigo reported, among other things, that Rendon denied giving Ubaldo
his “commission” but admitted handing him ( Ubaldo), on two occasions,
the amount Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) as meal allowance.

On October 15, 1998, the Secretary of Justice formally charged Ubaldo
with corruption and grave misconduct. In his answer, Ubaldo denied all
the charges imputed against him and contended that Judge Angeles merely
pressured Rendon into filing the charges against him. On the other hand,
Rendon and her witnesses affirmed the contents of their sworn
statements.

After investigation, the Department of Justice (DOJ) found Ubaldo
guilty of the said charges and recommended that he be for dismissed from
the service.

We agree with the findings and recommendation of the DOJ. The acts of
Ubaldo, in soliciting a commission in the monetary settlement of the
cases and receiving, on two occasions, the amount of Five Hundred Pesos
(P500.00) as attorney’s fees or meal allowance, even if given
voluntarily, are indeed highly improper and despicable. By such acts,
Ubaldo cheapened his noble office, as well as the entire prosecution
service of the government. It bears stressing that public prosecutors
are prohibited, in the course of their official duties, from soliciting
directly or indirectly anything of monetary value from any person
(Section 7 [b] of Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). This is in
consonance with the oft-stated principle that a public office is a
public trust. As a public servant, Ubaldo is bound to discharge his
official duties with candor, fidelity and diligence without expecting
anything in return. This is the essence of government service.

By the same token, we find it highly irregular and reprehensible his
act of insisting and forcing Rendon to amicably settle with the
defendant. As a public prosecutor, Ubaldo should ought to know that
amicable settlement are generally frowned upon in criminal cases.

Finally, the defense of Ubaldo that Rendon was merely pressured by
Judge Angeles to file the instant administrative case against him
appears implausible in view of the positive averments of Rendon and her
witnesses that he ( Ubaldo) indeed solicited “commission” and charged
attorney’s fees from her. We cannot conceive of any plausible reason why
Rendon and her witnesses, or even the presiding judge of the court
where the extortion attempt took place, should make such grave
imputation against Ubaldo unless they are true. It is most likely that
Rendon’s decision to file administrative complaint against Ubaldo may
have been prompted by the fact that she could no longer bear to suffer
the latter’s abusive conduct in silence.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 98-0011-FS

In his administrative complaint, Danilo Gonzales alleged that
sometime in August 1995, he entered into a “Deed of Conditional Sale”
with Ubaldo for the sale of a parcel of land in Kalookan City, covered
by TCT No. T-101879, containing an area of 312 square meters. From the
total purchase price of P280 ,000.00, Gonzales paid Ubaldo the amount of
P229,000.00, leaving a balance of P51,000.00. However, on April 11,
1996, Ubaldo, without the knowledge and consent of Gonzales, again sold
the same land to a certain Henry Piasan.

During the investigation, Ubaldo signed a covenant obligating himself
to reimburse Gonzales the amount of P229 ,000.00. By reason thereof,
the administrative proceeding was temporarily suspended to allow Ubaldo
the opportunity to settle the said amount. However, on April 6, 1999,
the DOJ received a letter from Gonzales complaining that Ubaldo did not
perform his obligation and stating that:

“For so many times in my personal experience, State Prosecutor
Ubaldo had again demonstrated his craftiness in deceiving people,
through this agreement and words we had caught in his mouth verbally
transpired in front of you Lady Fiscals. He is a First Class, qualified
and greedy cheat and are one of those “Hoodlum in Robes” who do not
deserve to be in government service.”

Consequently, the investigation resumed and Ubaldo was eventually
found guilty of conduct unbecoming a public official. In his letter
dated April 10, 2000, Justice Secretary Artemio Tuquero recommended the
suspension of Ubaldo from office for one (1) year.

We adopt the sound and persuasive report of the DOJ. However, the
recommended penalty is too light. The gravity of the charge against
Ubaldo merits a more severe penalty of dismissal from the service.

As public servants, prosecutors must, at all times, exhibit the
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. This kind of conduct is necessary in order to preserve the
good name and standing of the prosecution office.

In this case, Ubaldo falls short of the exacting standards of conduct
required of a member of the prosecution service of the government. He
not only violated the law against double sales but also deceived both
the complainant and the DOJ. His continued apathy to reimburse Gonzales
is, to our mind, an act of insolence, which we cannot allow to pass
without the corresponding sanction. We must bear in mind that those
involved in the administration of justice must live up to the strictest
standard of honest and integrity in the public service. This is in
accord with Section 4 (c) of RA 6713 which provides that public official
must, at all times, “respect the right of others, and shall refrain
from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public
policy, public order, public safety and public interest.”

CONCLUSION

The conduct of public prosecutors should at all times be free from
any appearance of impropriety. Ubaldo has not been exactly scrupulous in
exemplifying such high ideals. It cannot be over-emphasized that public
confidence in the prosecution service is severely eroded by such
irresponsible and improper conduct of Ubaldo. An indiscretion committed
in an unguarded moment may perhaps be tolerated, but not a regrettable
series thereof. In an earlier case, the DOJ recommended Ubaldo’s
suspension from office for six (6) months for neglect of duty after he
failed to resolve within the prescribed period the preliminary
investigation of the frustrated murder case filed by Felimon Justo III
against Ricardo de los Santos. Likewise, Ubaldo is presently being
investigated for allegedly demanding from defendant Ana Marie Sioson a
bottle of liquor and Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20 ,000.00) as settlement
of her case with the defendant in Criminal Case No. 53016 filed before
the aforesaid court. This series of transgression evidently shows his
penchant to violate with impunity the law.

It is worth emphasizing that the prosecution service of the
government exists for one solemn end — to promote justice by protecting
the interests of both the State and the oppressed. The prosecutor is the
visible representation of the law and of justice. Hence, a prosecutor
who, through serious misconduct, frustrates the people’s search for
justice and “commits a rank disservice to the cause of justice which
calls for rectification and the imposition of appropriate disciplinary
measures” ( Santos vs. Lumang, 177 SCRA 435).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, State Prosecutor Manuel Z. Ubaldo is
hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement
benefits and privileges, effective upon his receipt hereof.

Adopted: 31 May 2000

BY THE PRESIDENT:

(SGD.) RONALDO B. ZAMORA
Executive Secretary