A.M. No. 1810-CTJ. June 29, 1979
ANGELINA S. SALCEDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ENRIQUE B. INTING, RESPONDENT.
FERNANDEZ, J.:
This is a joint resolution of the above-entitled administrative
cases filed against City Judge Enrique B. Inting of Davao City.
I – ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. 1810-CTJ
In a letter complaint dated January 7, 1978 duly supported by
affidavits and other documents attached thereto, the complainant, Angelina S.
Salcedo, charged the respondent judge with violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practice Act (R.A. 3019) and Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
Specifically, the charges are:
(1) that the respondent, from July 1, 1964 to June 30, 1965 and January
1, 1967 to September 30, 1974, had collected from the government overpayments
of his salary in the total amount of P38,100.00 to which he had no right, using
the said amount for his own personal benefit, to the prejudice of the Republic
of the Philippines so that he is liable under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code;[1] and (2) that in a series of applications for
leave of absence with pay (June 2-8, 1977; July 20-25, 1977; and August 8-12,
1977) filed with the Supreme Court, the respondent judge made it appear that he
had no pending administrative case, said representation being false because as
of March 22, 1976, Administrative Matter No. 1229-CTJ was already filed against
him and that said administrative case had been already referred to the Executive
Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao for investigation, report and
recommendation and the said investigation, report and recommendation by the
Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao City had not yet been
terminated.[2]
The administrative
complaint was referred to City Judge Enrique B. Inting for comment.
In a second indorsement dated February 23, 1978, the respondent
judge alleged that the two (2) charges of overpayments of his salary and
falsification of his applications for leave of absences had been the subject of
criminal charges for estafa through falsification of public documents and for
corrupt practices under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act filed against
him before the City Fiscal of Davao by the complainant herein and his counsel
Atty. Samuel Occeña. As comment to the
charges, the respondent submitted his counter-affidavits filed with the City
Fiscal’s Office dated January 25, 1978, January 30, 1978 and February 1, 1978,
respectively. The resolution of Special
Counsel Rodrigo R. Duterte dated February
14, 1978 duly approved by Acting City Fiscal Alfredo B. Santos on
February 23, 1978 dismissing the charges for insufficiency of evidence was
likewise submitted.[3]
The respondent also submitted as addendum to his comment the list
of overpaid City Judges furnished him by the Acting Officer-in-Charge of the
Fiscal Management & Budget Office of this
Court, (Exhibits “1” & “1-A”).[4] In his supplemental comment, the respondent
bewailed the fact that he was singled out of the numerous judges who received
overpayments of their salaries and stated
that some City Judges like himself who were
recipient of the alleged overpayments were allowed to retire by just deducting the
overpayments received by them from the proceeds of their respective retirement
pay by this Court.[5]
A perusal of the record of this case shows that the respondent
judge may not be held criminally or administratively liable for the
overpayments of his salary. The said
overpayments commenced and were made possible by the mistake of construction
accorded to statutes providing salary increases of city judges by Financial and Budget Officers of the Department of Justice. This happened before the transfer of the
supervision of all courts to this Court by the new Constitution. The respondent judge and the other city
judges who received overpayments had not in any manner intervened or
participated one way or the other in the issuance of their treasury
warrants. The resolution of the City
Fiscal of Davao absolving the respondent judge of any criminal liability in
receiving the overpayments in salary is well taken. The respondent can not be held liable in this
administrative case filed against him because the elements of malice, corrupt
or fraudulent acts were found to be lacking.
The mere receipt and appropriation of the proceeds of the various
treasury warrants by the respondent payee herein, motivated by his honest and
firm belief that they were legally due him, does not prove the existence of mala
fide to subject him to administrative sanction. As this Court has repeatedly ruled,
administrative proceedings are “in their nature highly penal in character
and are to be governed by the rules of law applicable to criminal cases. The charges must, therefore, be proved
beyond a reasonable doubt.”[6]
The second charge against the respondent judge of falsely stating
in his applications for leave with pay that he had no pending administrative
case when in fact Administrative Matter No. 1229-CTJ was filed as early as
April 1976 with this Court, should likewise be dismissed.
The record shows that the three (3) applications for leave of
absence with pay[7]
filed by respondent bear no such false statements made by respondent himself
that he has no pending administrative case.
The statements “PENDING ADM. CASE, ‘NONE’ ” stamped on the
face of the applications were made by employees of this Court. The respondent judge should not be made
liable for something he did not falsely state.
Even granting that said leaves of absence were applied for by the
respondent judge with knowledge of his pending administrative case, his act is
sanctioned by this Court’s Memorandum Circular dated November 29, 1977, which
reads:
“Please be informed
that the long standing policy of not granting leaves with pay to officials and
employees with pending administrative cases against them has been changed. Henceforth, a mere pendency of an administrative
case against an official and employee shall not prejudice his right to vacation
leave with pay ‘in view of the presumption of innocence in favor of the
respondent’. He shall be entitled to a
vacation leave with pay unless otherwise ordered by the Court en banc or the Division to which the case
pertains. Officials and employees are
hereby enjoined to favorably act on request for vacation leaves even if there
is a pending administrative case filed
against him.”
II – ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER NO. 1995-CTJ
In a verified complaint dated August 8, 1978, Samuel C. Occeña, a
member of the Philippine Bar, charged the respondent judge, Enrique B. Inting, with serious misconduct and
conduct prejudicial to the judiciary.
The complainant alleged that he is the counsel of Mrs. Angelina
S. Salcedo, Assistant Docket Clerk of the City Court of Davao, who is the
complainant against the respondent in Administrative Case No. 1229-CTJ for
oppression, serious misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the judiciary, filed
on March 22, 1976, and in Administrative Case No. 1810-CTJ for gross dishonesty
filed on January 7, 1978; that the respondent judge has taken personal offense
at complainant’s representation of Mrs. Angelina Salcedo; that the respondent
judge has commenced a campaign of vilification against the complainant; that
on or about March 30, 1978, the respondent judge made a statement to the
MINDANAO DAILY MIRROR, a daily newspaper widely circulated in Davao City and
the rest of Mindanao, falsely alleging that the complainant, a “lawyer of
Salcedo x x x has been
maintaining a long feud against him. He
said that Occeña has filed several cases of administrative, criminal and
contempt charges against him as city judge in order to harass him.”; that
the false and derogatory statement was published in the March 31, 1970 issue
of the MINDANAO DAILY MIRROR; that on Sunday afternoon, August 6, 1978, a
CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY MEETING of the Davao City High School Parents-Teachers
Association, of which the complainant was president, was scheduled; that the
respondent, who had not been attending meetings of such association before,
attended this particular meeting; that the complainant was presiding over the
meeting attended by about five hundred (500) persons, more or less, in the
auditorium of the Davao City High School; that when Item V of the Order of Business was reached,
the respondent judge, without being recognized by the Presiding Officer, went
up to the stage and against the will of the complainant, grabbed the microphone
that complainant was using and despite being ruled out of order, said
respondent judge disrupted the meeting by delivering a long speech; that thereafter,
the respondent judge attempted to preside over the meeting and shouted over the
microphone for the holding of elections, which was not in the agenda; that the
said behavior of the respondent judge scandalized many parents, who left the
auditorium in disgust; that because of the disorder caused by the respondent
judge, the Constituent Assembly which entailed considerable expenses on the
part of the Davao City High School Parents-Teachers Association could not be
held; that after the meeting was disrupted, the respondent judge continued
shouting unsavory remarks on the floor of the auditorium; that the incidents
complained of herein and in the complaints of Mrs. Salcedo are not the only
instances demonstrative of respondent’s propensity for violence; and that in
Administrative Case No. 1229-CTJ, the Supreme Court was requested to take
judicial notice of the letter complaint of former Mayor of Davao City, Atty.
Rodolfo Sarenas, sent to the President of the Philippines and referred to this
Court, wherein former Mayor Sarenas charged that he was publicly manhandled by
the respondent judge.
In his comment dated October 3, 1978,[8]
the respondent judge alleged that the charge regarding the publication in the
March 31, 1978 issue of the Mindanao Daily Mirror is a repetition of the Fourth
Petition for Indirect Contempt in Administrative Matter No. 1229-CTJ in which
Atty. Samuel C. Occeña is counsel for the complainant Angelina S. Salcedo; that
the charge was later repeated in the Sixth Supplemental Complaint and Petition
for Indirect Contempt also filed in Administrative Matter No. 1229-CTJ; that
the Fourth Petition for Indirect Contempt and the Sixth Supplemental Complaint
and Petition for Indirect Contempt have been submitted for resolution to the
Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao City, who conducted the
hearing of Administrative Matter No. 1229-CTJ; that in the hearing of the
Fourth Petition for Indirect Contempt and Sixth Supplemental Complaint and
Petition for Indirect Contempt in Administrative Matter No. 1229-CTJ, the
complainant, through Atty. Samuel C. Occeña,
presented evidence only consisting of the issue of the Mindanao Daily Mirror
dated March 31, 1978 as Exhibits “A” and “A-1” but said
exhibits were denied admission by the Executive Judge in an order dated May
30, 1978.
The respondent judge further averred that the alleged false and
derogatory statement in the Mindanao Daily Mirror issue of March 31, 1978 did
not come from him; and that he merely furnished the reporter of the Mindanao
Daily Mirror with copies of respondent’s affidavit and the resolution of the
City Fiscal of Davao which supported respondent’s charge of libel against Atty.
Samuel C. Occeña filed with the City Fiscal’s Office.
On the charge of having allegedly disrupted the meeting of the
Davao City High School Parents-Teachers Association on August 6, 1978, the
respondent judge said that he was merely exercising his right of free speech
and he did not disrupt the meeting; that in advocating the holding of an
election in the meeting of August 6, 1978, the respondent judge never made any unsavory remark against the
complainant; that he did not misbehave and that he never mentioned the name of
Atty. Occeña; that the respondent only delivered a short talk after he was
requested by Atty. Nidea who had the floor; that the respondent did not grab from the complainant the microphone he was using because the respondent used the
microphone installed on the floor; and that if there was any disturbance or
disruption of the meeting, it was caused by Atty. Occeña himself when he ruled
out and silenced everybody who spoke against the business of discussing the
proposed Constitution.
To support his explanation, the respondent judge attached the
joint affidavit of Perla Palma Gil and Emilia S. Sitjar[9]
and the affidavit of Atty. Alfredo B. Nidea.[10]
There is no showing that the respondent judge has maliciously
issued any statement for publication to the Mindanao Daily Mirror. Neither is there any sufficient evidence to
show that the respondent had misbehaved or acted in a manner unbecoming of a City Judge at the meeting of the
Davao City High School Parents-Teachers Association on August 6, 1978. The version of the respondent judge is
supported by the joint affidavit of Perla Palma Gil and Emilia S. Sitjar and of
the affidavit of Alfredo B. Nidea.
It is to be noted that the acts of the respondent judge
complained of have no direct relation with his official duties as City
Judge. The misfeasance or malfeasance
of a judge, to warrant disciplinary action must have 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 said judge. Thus in Amosco vs. Magro,[11] this Court said:
“x x x Misconduct in office has a
definite and well-understood legal meaning.
By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his
performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his
character as a private individual. In
such cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to separate the
character of the man from the character of the officer. * * * It is settled that
misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal from office of an
officer, must have 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 * * *. “
WHEREFORE, the two (2) administrative complaints against
the respondent, Judge Enrique B. Inting, Administrative Matters Nos. 1810-CTJ
and 1995-CTJ, are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-5.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 6-10.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 11-34.
[4]
Ibid., pp. 71-75
[5]
Ibid., pp. 46-47.
[6]
Bartolome vs. de Borja, 71 SCRA
153, 160; Meimban vs. Balite, 72 SCRA 380, 383.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 8-10.
[8]
Rollo, pp. 17-63.
[9]
Annex “B” to Comment, Rollo, pp. 51-52.
[10]
Annex “C” to Comment, Rollo, pp. 53-55.
[11]
Administrative Matter No. 439-MJ, 73 SCRA 107.