ELISEO M. TENZA, COMPLAINANT, VS. RODOLFO M. ESPINELLI, RESPONDENT.

In a sworn complaint filed on January 29, 1979 Atty. Eliseo M. Tenza charged Rodolfo
M. Espinelli, a deputy sheriff of Quezon
City, with grave misconduct in office in that on or about December 18, 1978 at
about 2:00 to 2:30 o’clock in the afternoon during office hours, while the
complainant was walking in the corridor of the sixth floor of the City Hall of Quezon City on his way to the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Quezon City, the
respondent, without any valid reason whatsoever, immediately accosted and boxed
the complain­ant, after pretending to ask why said complainant re­fused to give
documents in his office in connection with a pending case in the Court of
Appeals, thus catching the complainant off-guard and by surprise; that the
complainant was boxed on the left side of the head causing him to lose
consciousness and while dozed, the respondent followed the attack with another
blow on complainant’s right jaw thus causing both his upper and lower teeth to be thrown far away; and that it was
only when the complainant was personally escorted and brought to the room of Judge
Eduardo C. Tutaan that the complainant was able to
get away from the place of attack.^[1]

In his explanation, the respondent denied having physically assaulted the
complainant and alleged that while the respondent was on the sixth floor of the
Quezon City
Hall Building
he met the complainant; that the respondent inquired from the complainant about
pertinent documents relating to Civil Case No. CA-50577 involving the respondent’s parents; that the complainant who was
the counsel of record, took offense and answered bluntly that the respondent is
not concerned with the case, at the same time pointing his right index finger
to the respondent’s face in front of so many persons; that the respondent
merely parried the com­plainant’s hand; that the complainant became violent and
assaulted the respondent with fistic blows; that the respondent simply acted in
self defense; that the respondent suffered physical injuries and he filed a
criminal case against the complainant; and that after a preliminary
investigation, the case was filed in the City Court of Quezon
City and docketed as Criminal Case No. 192949 entitled “People of the
Philippines vs. Eliseo Tenza”
and a warrant of arrest was issued.^[2]

In a fifth indorsement dated August 7, 1980, the Court Administrator referred the case to Executive
City Judge, Hon. Aloysius Alday for investigation,
report and recommendation.^[3]

Judge Aloysius C. Alday found as a fact
that the respondent inflicted physical injuries on the complai­nant and recommended that the respondent
“be meted the penalty of forced resignation without prejudice to
reinstatement x x x.”^[4]

It will be noted that the acts complained of are not in any
manner connected with the performance of the official duties of the respondent
as deputy sheriff of Quezon City.  The respondent did not look for the com­plainant.  Their meeting at the sixth floor of the Quezon City Hall
Building was accidental.  Moreover, it does not appear that when the
incident took place the courts were in session.

It is, therefore, clear that the respondent cannot be guilty of
misconduct in office because:

“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. (Mechem, supra, section 457).  ‘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…’ (43, Am. Jur., 39, 40).”^[5]

It
is a fact, however, that the respondent inflic­ted physical injuries on
a member of the Philippine Bar in the premises of the Quezon City Hall
building where the court rooms are located. 
For this conduct, the respondent should be punished.

WHEREFORE, the respondent, Rodolfo M. Espinelli,
deputy sheriff of Quezon City,
is hereby found guilty of inflicting injuries on a member of the Philippine Bar
and is hereby suspended from office for four months effective from the finality
of this decision, without salary, and the period of suspension should not be
charged to his accumulated leave.

Let this decision be made a part of the personal record of the
respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee,
Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr.,
Guerrero, and Abad
Santos, JJ.,
concur.

Barredo, J., votes with J. Melencio-Herrera.

Aquino, J., dissents. The boxing incident does not justify any administrative
disciplinary action against the respondent.

De Castro, J., see separate
opinion.

Melencio-Herrera, J., The incident involved herein is a private matter between the parties,
in no way connected with the functions of private respondent’s office. But because
the disturbance occurred in the corridor of a Government building where the
court rooms are located, and, as an exemplary punishment, suspension from
office for one (1) month, suffices.

^[1]
Record, pp. 1-5.

^[2]
Record, pp. 22-26.

^[3]
Record, p. 33.

^[4]
Record, pp. 220-222.

^[5]
Lacson vs.
Roque, etc., et al., 92 Phil. 456, 465.

150
Clean
Clean

6 pt
6 pt
0
3

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}