ANGELA L. DAILAY-PAPA, COMPLAINANT, VS. MUNICIPAL JUDGE BEN ALMORA, MANKAYAN, BENGUET, RESPONDENT.

Judge Ben Almora of the municipal court of Mankayan, Benguet appointed
on February 9, 1976 Angela L. Dailay, a first grade civil service eligible, as
his clerk of court pursuant to section 75 of the Judiciary Law.  Corazon L. Paras, the Administrative Officer
of this Court, certified that the appointment was in order.  The Civil Service Commission approved the
appointment as permanent (Exh. A).

About six months
later, Judge Almora in an “‘administrative order” dated August 9,
1976, required Angela to explain within forty-eight hours why she should not be
dismissed due to her repeated absences and her alleged noncompliance with the
requirement that she should place her time records in the pouch provided for
that purpose (Exh. B).

Angela denied the charges in her answer dated August 17.  A copy of that answer was furnished the
Judicial Consultant (Exh. C).

Judge Almora, not satisfied with Angela’ s answer and believing
that he had the power to remove her, dismissed her (effective August 31, 1976)
in his letter of August 26, 1976, which reads (Exh. D-1):

“Miss Dailay:

“You are hereby duly informed that your service is to be terminated
by the end of August, 1976, for legal cause in accordance with law and the
Civil Service Rules and Regulations and in relation with the memorandum of this
Court directed to you which you failed to
answer satisfactorily within the 48 hours given you after receipt thereof.”

Angela in her letter of August 27 to Judge Almora complained that
her summary dismissal was a violation of the Constitution and the Civil Service
Law.  She asked for a formal
investigation (Exh. E).  Judge Almora did
not act on that request, maybe because he had re­ceived an indorsement from
Mrs. Paras, requesting his comment on Angela’s letter to the Judicial
Consultant dated August 9.  In that
letter, she applied for a vacation leave of absence for three months, from
September 1 to November 30, in order to prepare for, and take, the bar
examinations.  She explained that she did
not course her applica­tion to Judge Almora because the latter was opposed to
her taking a leave of absence
(Exh. G).

Judge Almora in his second indorsement of August 28, 1977 to Mrs. Paras said that Angela
should not be given a leave of absence and that she should be separated from
the service because of her unauthorized absences, negligence, inefficiency and
disobedience.  He informed Mrs. Paras
that he had terminated Angela’ s services as of August 31, 1976 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 6 and
that he had advised the
accounting office of this Court to stop the payment of her salary (Exh. F).

Angela, who was required by Mrs. Paras to comment on Judge Almora’s indorsement, alleged
that the latter’s charges were unfounded and that her dismissal was a
capricious and arbitrary exer­cise of discretion by Judge Almora and a denial
of due process (Exh. I-2).

Angela took her three-month leave of absence.  She passed the 1976 bar examinations and
later got married.  She returned to duty
on December 6, 1976 and
asked Judge Almora to approve her additional leave of absence from December 1
to 3.  He “rejected” it on the
ground that he had already terminated her services (Exh.  R).  He did not allow her to resume her
work.

Angela retrieved the original and copies of her disapproved appli­cation
for three days’ leave of absence from Teresita Kidlo, the clerk in the
municipal court in charge of sending the application to this Court.  Angela told Teresita that she herself
(Angela) would send the applica­tion to this Court.

When Judge Almora learned of that fact, he instructed Teresita
and the janitor, Julio Culliao, to get back the application from Angela but she
could not be found.  Judge Almora
instructed Culliao to call a policeman. 
Patrolman Gonzalo Reyes, Jr. was ordered by Judge Almora to arrest
Angela.  For that purpose, the judge
issued a warrant of arrest containing the order:  “You are hereby commanded to arrest
Angela L. Dailay to bring back her Application for Leave from Dec. 1 to
3, 1976…”

Angela was arrested at nine-thirty in the morning of December 7
and brought to Judge Almora’s office.  He
told Angela that he would release her if she gave him her application for leave
of absence.  When Angela informed him
that she had forwarded it to this Court, he asked her to comment on the warrant
of arrest.  He accused Angela of having
written a letter wherein she used the name of Edwin Camsol.  In that letter, the writer imputed certain
violations of the law to Judge Almora.

Because Judge Almora was shouting at her and a crowd had gathered
in the office, Angela, unable to bear the humiliation of the situation, stepped out and went home.  Judge Almora went to her residence in the afternoon and asked her to sign an
affidavit that she was released in the
morning.  She refused to sign it.

Angela filed in the
municipal court a formal written manifestation with the heading “People of the Philippines,
plaintiff, vs. Angela L. Dailay”, wherein
she alleged that the warrant was issued without probable cause.  She disclosed that she had already forwarded
to this Court her application for leave of absence (Exh. AA).

In a verified complaint dated January 25, 1977, Angela de­nounced to this Court Judge Almora’ s act of dismissing her as clerk of court and
causing her arrest.

Judge Almora answered the complaint in a twelve-page answer
wherein he defended his actions and prayed that Angela be reprimanded for
having filed unfounded charges against him.

The incident regarding Angela’s dismissal (Adm. Matter No.
543-MC) and the arrest (Adm. Matter No. 1525-MJ) were referred for
investigation, report and recommendation to Judge Sinforoso Fañgonil in this
Court’s resolutions of March 29 and May
25, 1977.

A protracted investigation of the two matters was held.  The transcripts of the testimony consist of
844 pages.  The records of the two cases
have become voluminous – more than 600 pages. 
Judge Fafigonil in his report of September
12, 1981 found that Judge Almora had no authority to dismiss Angela
because it is this Court which has the power to
discipline and remove from the service any judge, officer or employee of the
judiciary (Sec. 6, Art. X, Constitution; Sec. 1, P. D. No. 185, May 7, 1973; Minutes of the Supreme Court Session en Banc No. 25, July 25, 1974, 62 SCRA
555).

Judge Fañgonil also found that the arrest of Angela was unjus­tified.  However, considering Judge Almora’s service
in the judiciary of more than thirty-five years, Judge Fañgonil recommended a
penalty of severe reprimand.  Judge
Fañgonil’s findings are supported by law and the evidence.

The Court Administrator recommends that for each of the two acts of
grave abuse of authority committed by Judge Almora, he be
ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his salary for one month.

Judge Almora reached the age of seventy years on November 28, 1981.  In this Court’ s
resolution of October 27, 1981,
he was allowed to retire under permanent disability (Adm. Matter No.
1553-Ret.).

We approve the Court Administrator’s recommendation.  The fine equivalent to Judge Almora’s salary
for two months should be deducted from his retirement pay.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro,
Melencio-Herrera, Ericta, Plana, and
Escolin, JJ., concur.

Teehankee and Makasiar, JJ., vote for the imposition
of a penalty of five of one’s years salary.

Barredo, and Concepcion,
Jr., JJ., on leave.