IN RE: LOSS OF THE RECORDS OF G.R. NO. 126468 ENTITLED SONIA LLAMAS-TAN V. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

In re Loss of the Records of the Llamas-Tan Case

The Case

This is an administrative matter arising from the loss of the records of a decided case. Jose Ang, the Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the Judgment Division of the Judicial Records Office of the Supreme Court, complained that the rollo of a case entitled Sonia Llamas-Tan versus Court of Appeals had disappeared from the office. He charged Cesar Barroso, a utility worker, and Melquiades Briones, a clerk, with dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service. The case matters because it fixes the meaning of misconduct in office for court personnel and shows how the Supreme Court weighs a sworn statement of one respondent against another who never faced investigation.

Procedural History

The matter began as a letter-complaint dated July 24, 1997, addressed by Jose Ang to the Clerk of Court. The Office of Administrative Services, through its Complaints and Investigation Division, directed both respondents to answer. Barroso never complied. Briones filed an answer dated July 24, 2000, denying the charges and reiterating his earlier affidavit. An investigation was conducted on August 1, 2000, at which Briones appeared and denied the allegations. Barroso could not be served with notice at his last known address and never appeared. Atty. Edwin Andrada of the Complaints and Investigation Division then submitted a recommendation to the Office of the Chief Justice that both respondents be dismissed for gross misconduct. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, resolved the administrative case directly.

Facts

The case of Sonia Llamas-Tan versus Court of Appeals was a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision affirming a trial court ruling in a civil case for rescission and damages. On November 13, 1996, the Third Division denied the petition. Motions for reconsideration were denied, and on April 28, 1997, the Court granted the private respondents' motion for entry of judgment and for remand of the records.

In the first week of June 1997, a representative of the private respondents asked about the status of the case. Cesar Miral, a processor of cases, took out the rollo and placed it on his desk. On June 11, 1997, while following up on a missing return card, Miral discovered that the rollo was gone and had been replaced with the rollo of another case. On June 30, 1997, Ang directed that the records be reconstituted. In July, an employee of the Judicial Records Office told Ang that Barroso, together with other employees, may have been responsible.

In a sworn statement executed before the Clerk of Court on August 14, 1997, Barroso admitted that Briones approached him, gave him one hundred pesos, and borrowed the rollo, supposedly for photocopying. The next day Briones borrowed it again, and Barroso wrote the case number on it before handing it over. Briones then offered him five thousand pesos each month for as long as no entry of judgment was made. Barroso accepted because he feared being seen returning the records. Later, when Ang pressed the search, Briones told him the rollo had been burned. Barroso never answered the complaint and had been absent without leave since July 1997. Briones denied everything, and the investigation produced no other evidence of his participation.

Issues

• Whether or not Barroso is guilty of misconduct in office for taking the rollo in exchange for money.
• Whether or not Barroso's absence without official leave during the investigation may be taken as indicative of guilt.
• Whether or not Briones may be held administratively liable on the strength of Barroso's sworn statement alone.

Applicable Provisions

Section 46, paragraph b, of Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 provides:

The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action: (b) Misconduct.

This is the ground on which the Court disciplines Barroso, and the Court construes misconduct as an intentional wrongdoing connected with official duties.

Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution provides:

Public office is a public trust. 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.

This supplies the standard of conduct that Barroso violated and that every court employee must meet.

Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:

The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.

This is why Briones cannot be bound by Barroso's sworn statement.

Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides:

The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.

This exception does not apply to Briones because no conspiracy was shown by independent evidence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Barroso is guilty of grave misconduct. Misconduct in office means misconduct that affects the employee's performance of his duties as an officer, and not merely his character as a private individual. It must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties. Barroso admitted taking the rollo in consideration of a sum of money. That act is an intentional wrongdoing directly connected with his duties. The fact that he acted upon the request of another is no defense, for by failing to course the request through proper channels he violated the standard of behavior expected of him. A utility worker has no authority to release court records.

On the second issue, the Court held that Barroso's absence without official leave during the investigation is indicative of his guilt, just like flight in a criminal case. His conduct failed to protect the integrity of the judiciary and public confidence in it.

On the third issue, the Court held that the evidence against Briones is insufficient. His answer, "for Xeroxing," is ambiguous and cannot be taken as an admission. Barroso never appeared during the investigation and could not be examined, so his sworn statement cannot prejudice Briones under the rule that a party's rights cannot be prejudiced by the act or declaration of another. The co-conspirator exception requires that the conspiracy first be shown by evidence other than the declaration itself, and no such conspiracy was shown.

Doctrine

Misconduct in office, as a ground for disciplinary action, is an intentional wrongdoing that has a direct relation to and is connected with the performance of official duties, amounting to maladministration or willful intentional neglect. A court employee who releases records without authority commits misconduct, and the instruction of another person is not a defense. Absence without official leave during the investigation of an administrative case is indicative of guilt, like flight in a criminal case. A respondent cannot be held liable on the extrajudicial statement of a co-respondent who never appeared for investigation, because the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by the act or declaration of another, and the co-conspirator exception applies only after the conspiracy is shown by independent evidence.

Disposition

Cesar Barroso was dismissed from the service for gross misconduct, with forfeiture of retirement benefits and prejudice to reemployment in the government, while the case against Melquiades Briones was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

Remember This

Memorize this line: misconduct in office must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties. Examiners use this case for the requisites of misconduct by court personnel and for the rule that a co-respondent's sworn statement, standing alone, cannot support an administrative finding.