JUDGE MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ALBERTO D. ALMEIDA, PROCESS SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 53, MANILA, RESPONDENT.

Judge Maximo Savellano, Jr., of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 53, in a letter complaint to the Court Administrator dated March
20, 1992, charged his court Process Server, Alberto D. Almeida, with grave
misconduct for his unauthorized taking from the steel cabinet in the custody of
Branch Clerk of Court Rita E. Quizon certain exhibits consisting of packets of
“shabu” in Crim. Case No. 91-95715 (People vs. Emmanuel Deveza) and
in Crim. Case No. 91-95716 (People vs. Carmencita Deveza).

According to Judge Savellano, he called the NBI to investigate
the incident. The result of the NBI
investigation is contained in its report dated 20 March 1992 showing that
respondent Almeida was responsible for the missing quantity of the
“shabu” exhibit in the Deveza cases.

On 14 February 1992, Judge Savellano issued a Memorandum to
respondent Alberto D. Almeida thus –

“You are hereby given seventy-two hours from your receipt
hereof within which to show cause in writing why you should not be dismissed
from the service for opening, without permission from the undersigned Presiding
Judge or the Branch Clerk of Court, office cabinets and taking out records of
cases and evidence on February 7, 1992, at around 4:10 p.m., specifically the
cabinets of the Branch Clerk of Court located inside the staff room, containing
the records of Criminal Cases Nos. 91­-95715 and 91-96716, entitled People of
the Philippines vs. Emmanuel Deveza and People of the Philippines vs.
Carmencita Deveza and Emmanuel Deveza, respectively, including the evidence
consisting of shabu which you took out and placed on top of the table of the
undersigned Presiding Judge in the courtroom, when you were left alone in the
office, the court aide Ramon Orticio, upon coming back to the office, having
seen you alone scanning the records containing the small plastic bag of shabu
which was sealed by the Branch Clerk of Court, and which was found by the
Branch Clerk to have been already opened and some of its contents strewn
outside the plastic container when she reported for work in the morning of
February 10, 1992.

“You are further directed to explain why you still have in
your possession keys to the door and cabinets in the office enabling you to go
in and out of the office anytime and open the cabinets without permission from
the undersigned and the Branch Clerk of Court, despite the fact that the
undersigned ordered all subordinate employees below the Branch Clerk on
November 11, 1991 to surrender all the keys to the doors and cabinets in their
respective possessions.”

The above Memorandum was received by respondent Almeida on 17
February 1992 as evidenced by his handwritten receipt thereon. Since receipt of such Memorandum, respondent
Almeida has not been regularly reporting for work.

On 2 March 1992, respondent Alberto D. Almeida belatedly filed
his answer admitting having opened the cabinet containing evidence of pending
cases but claimed it was merely out of curiosity.

On 14 April 1992, Judge Savellano placed respondent Alberto D.
Almeida on preventive suspension.

These circumstances led Judge Savellano to lose his confidence in
Process Server Almeida and to recommend his dismissal from the service.

On 8 June 1992, We referred the case to Judge Bernardo P. Pardo,
Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, for investigation,
report and recommendation.

On 24 November 1992, Executive Judge Pardo filed his Report and
Recommendation dated 6 November 1992 stating that the Branch Clerk of Court
concerned whose testimony was needed to complete the investigation of the case
left for abroad and her return was not certain; that respondent continued to be
under suspension from office since 14 April 1992; that on 19 October 1992
respondent tendered his resignation addressed to the Court Administrator but
expressing his desire to avail of all monetary and other benefits arising from
his employment; that in the absence of the testimony of the Branch Clerk of
Court, it could not be determined with moral certainty whether respondent was
responsible for the missing exhibits in the Deveza cases; and, that
respondent’s resignation was equally an effective mode of termination of his
employment with the Court.

The Executive Judge then recommended that: (a) the resignation of respondent be
accepted effective 28 February 1993; (b) his preventive suspension be lifted
immediately; and, (c) all monetary benefits otherwise due respondent be
released to him.

On 7 December 1992, before the Court could act on the report
dated 6 November 1992, Branch Clerk of Court Rita E. Quizon arrived from
abroad. The Executive Judge then
reopened the investigation of the case and heard her testimony in the presence
of respondent.

On 14 January 1993, Executive Judge Pardo submitted his
Supplemental Report and Recommendation stating that –

“x x x x On August 3, 1992, one Ramon Orticio y Rosales, Court
Aide, Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Manila, testified that on February 7,
1992, at about 4:15 p.m., he saw respondent Alberto Almeida inside the
courtroom. He (witness) went inside and
saw envelopes containing exhibits of the Deveza case for drug pushing, on top
of the rostrum. The following working
day, February 10, 1992, when he reported for work, the exhibits of the Deveza
case(s) were found scattered inside an envelope. The exhibits are packets of shabu powder.

On August 7, 1992, we called for branch clerk of court Atty. Rita
Quizon to hear her on the facts of the case but she was out of the country and
the date of her return was not known.

Also on August 7, 1992, respondent Almeida testified that on
February 7, 1992, he served court processes during the day and returned to the
Court at 4:30 p.m. The branch clerk
asked him to close the office. He saw
the filing cabinet unlocked and he brought out a certain envelope of a case he
did not know and placed the envelope in the rostrum. He opened the envelope to check if anything was missing and
placed them back in the filing cabinet. At this time, Ramon Orticio arrived. Then he (Almeida) closed the office. The next working day, the branch clerk of court asked him why he
interfered with the evidence in bundles in the filing cabinet. He was then subjected to investigation by
agents of the National Bureau of investigation.

On November 06, 1992, we submitted a report and recommendation
dispensing with the testimony of the branch clerk of court as she was out of
the country and recommending acceptance of the resignation of respondent
Almeida.

However, Branch Clerk of Court Rita E. Quizon arrived on December
07, 1992. Consequently, pursuant to a
resolution of the Supreme Court, we re-opened the investigation and heard the
testimony of Atty. Quizon, in the presence of the respondent Almeida. Atty. Quizon testified that on February 10,
1992, early in the morning, she reported for work at the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 53, Manila; that Ramon Orticio y Rosales, Court Aide, told her that on
February 7, 1992, at about quarter to 5:00 in the afternoon, when he went back
to the office, he saw Alberto Almeida, Process Server, inside the courtroom and
that the exhibits in the Deveza case were scattered in the rostrum; that she
immediately went to the filing cabinet where the exhibits are kept; that the
cabinet was locked; that she opened the filing cabinet and found one bundle of
exhibits pertaining to the Deveza case (Crim. Case No. 91-­95715-16 for
Violation R.A. 6425, Sec. 15 and 16, Dangerous Drugs Act) topsy-turvy; that she
examined the envelope and found that the packet containing the shabu was opened
with a tear in it; that she confronted respondent Almeida who admitted opening
the exhibits but saying it was just for curiosity’s sake; that she reported to
the presiding judge and the presiding judge called the NBI; that she executed
an affidavit before the NBI agent and that the presiding judge ordered the re-weighing
of the shabu exhibit.

We find the testimony of Atty. Quizon to be reflective of the
truth. Respondent Almeida did not
question her and made no further remarks. Thus, it is beyond doubt that respondent Almeida opened the envelope
containing the “shabu” constituting evidence in the case of People
vs. Deveza, Crim. Case No. 91-95715-16, Regional Trial Court, Manila; he opened
the plastic packets of shabu and scattered the substance in the envelopes. After the NBI conducted an examination of
the contents of the packets, they weighed less than the original weight of
40.363 grams.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, we find respondent Alberto Almeida, Process
Server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Manila, to be guilty of grave
misconduct in office, and respectfully recommend that he be DISMISSED from the
service effective on the date of his preventive suspension on April 14,
1992.”

We find the above Supplemental Report and Recommendation of
Executive Judge Pardo duly supported by the evidence on record. Consequently, We agree with him that
respondent be dismissed from the service.

In the statement of respondent before the NBI (Rollo, pp. 14-16),
he admitted that he was at least an occasional “shabu” user; that he
started to use “shabu” in the later months of 1991; that in those
occasions, he used about 1/8 gram of “shabu” worth P100.00; that
during “shabu” sessions, he and his friends would spend about
P400.00; and, that he opened the “shabu” exhibits kept in the filing
cabinet of their Branch Clerk of Court out of curiosity, i.e., to look at the
crystals because ordinarily he would only use “shabu” in powder form.

In contrast, respondent testified before Executive Judge Pardo
that he merely checked the envelopes he had taken out from the cabinet of
exhibits to find out if anything was missing therein and placed the envelopes
back.

We are not persuaded by the explanation of respondent. As aptly observed by Judge Savellano,
“[s]uch explanation is flimsy and incredible and does not merit serious
consideration.” The detailed circumstances he related to the NBI convince
Us that he is indeed a “shabu” user so that he was interested in the
exhibits in question. That should
explain why of the numerous bundles of exhibits inside the cabinet, he chose to
open the envelopes containing the “shabu” exhibits in the Deveza
cases. It could not simply be a matter
of curiosity on his part. Besides,
according to the NBI report, when the contents of the packets of
“shabu” were examined “they weighed less than the original weight
of 40.363 grams.”

Significantly, at the hearing conducted by Executive Judge Pardo,
respondent remained silent in the face of the derogatory statements made
against him by Branch Clerk of Court Rita E. Quizon. Respondent did not present any evidence to rebut the evidence
proffered against him.

It may be worth to mention that on 7 December 1992, Judge Maximo
A. Savellano, Jr., wrote Associate Justice Josue N. BelIosillo forwarding to
him a copy of his (Judge Savellano) letter to respondent, Process Server
Alberto D. Almeida, dated 12 August 1992, copy of which Judge Savellano
furnished Executive Judge Pardo, requiring respondent Almeida –

“ x x x to show cause in writing within seventy-two (72) hours from
receipt hereof why you should not be charged administratively for grave
misconduct or graft for having allegedly collected sometime in April 1990, the
amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) from Efren Magsombol, petitioner in
Civil Case No. 90-52411, pending before this branch, entitled Efren Magsombol v.
NHA and Nicanor Peji, for payment of insurance premium on the P20,000.00
injunction bond required to be put up by the said petitioner pursuant to the
Court’s Order, dated April 20, 1990 (Rollo, page 68); and the further amount of
One Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos (P1,800.00) in cash which you again allegedly
collected from Efren Magsombol when you went to his house in connection with
the said injunction bond, as per the affidavit of Efren Magsombol, dated August
7, 1992, a xerox copy of which is hereto attached as Annex ‘A’ and made an
integral part hereof; and why up to the present, injunction bond has not been
procured for and in the name of Efren Magsombol. These, despite the order of the undersigned Presiding Judge that
all the employees of this Branch should never intervene for monetary
considerations in the procurement of injunction bonds in any case pending
before this Branch.”

Judge Savellano stated that respondent Alberto D. Almeida failed
to answer the above Memorandum despite the latter’s receipt thereof on 19
August 1992 as evidenced by his signature thereon; that respondent Almeida
admitted to him (Judge Savellano) that he collected the amount of P3,800.00
from Magsombol and notwithstanding his (Almeida) promise to reimburse the
amount he has not done so, thus compelling Magsombol to secure the bond himself
from an insurance company and spending additional money for it.

Verily, the actuations of respondent Process Server, Alberto D.
Almeida, constitute grave misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service. As We
emphasized in Tan v. Herras (Adm. Matter No. P-90-404, 11 March, 1991,
195 SCRA 1), the conduct of judges and court personnel must at all times be
characterized not only by propriety and decorum but must also be above
suspicion. In this regard, respondent
utterly failed to meet this exacting standard. He has gravely abused the confidence reposed in him by Judge Savellano. To a greater degree, he has violated the
norm of public accountability set forth in Sec. 7, Art. XI of the
Constitution. We cannot countenance any
act which would diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people
in the administration of justice (see Annang v. Vda. de Blas, Adm.
Matter No. P-91-602, 15 October 1991, 202 SCRA 635).

WHEREFORE, respondent ALBERTO D. ALMEIDA, Process
Server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Manila, is hereby DISMISSED from
the service for grave misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the judiciary, effective 14 April 1992 when he was suspended, with forfeiture
of all benefits otherwise due him except accrued leaves.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Campos, Jr., and Quiason, JJ., concur.