RUBEN AUSTRIA, COMPLAINANT, VS. EDUARDO APA, CLERK OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF BURAUEN, LEYTE, RESPONDENT.

This is an administrative complaint filed by Engr. Ruben L.
Austria, General Manager of the Leyte Electric Cooperative, Inc., against
Eduardo Apa, Clerk of the Municipal Court of Burauen, Leyte, for Oppression,
Arrogance, Highhandedness and Malfeasance in the exercise of his duty as public
officer of the government.

The complaint was referred to the Executive Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Leyte for investigation, report and recommendation after
respondent’s comment and complainant’s reply thereto were both filed.  District Judge Temistocles B. Diez of Branch
IX of said Court conducted the investigation and sub­mitted a report with the
recommendation that respondent be meted the penalty of severe reprimand for his
act.

The report of the Investigator contains the following un­disputed
facts:

“Eduardo Apa, the herein respondent is a member-consumer of
the LEYECO I (Leyte Electric Cooperative I). 
He incurred a delinquency in the payment of his electric light bills
corresponding to three months in the amount of P122.50 plus the additional sum
of P76.70 representing unpaid account for the installation of electric wirings
in the house of respondent.  Because of
this unpaid amount, the electrical connections to the house of respondent was
cut off or disconnected by Justiniano Prado and Antonio Pingol, linemen of the
LEYECO, on June 15, 1976, at about 3:30 o’clock in the afternoon.  Upon hearing of the cutting off or
disconnection of his electrical line, the respondent tried to contact the men
who disconnected his electrical line and failing in this, sent a telegram (Exh.
“7”) to the Manager of the LEYECO I in Tolosa, Leyte that he wanted
to meet the said linemen in the Police Department of Burauen.  When the linemen did not appear at the police
depart­ment, the herein respondent, who is a clerk of the Municipal Court of
Burauen, Leyte, himself prepared a complaint for Malicious Mischief against the
linemen who disconnected his electrical lines that same after­noon.  Acting on the complaint, the Municipal Judge
of Burauen issued the corresponding warrant of arrest for (Jaz) Justiniano
Prado and Antonio Pingol.  At about 7:00
o’clock of that day, June 15, 1976 Antonio Pingol was arrested by Burauen
Policemen Culaban, Sudario and Avila who used a Ford Fierra vehicle owned by
respondent Eduardo Apa who drove the vehicle himself and who with two other
civilian companions accompanied the police in effecting the arrest.  Upon the other hand, Justiniano (Jaz) Prado
was arrested at about 9:45 o’clock that date June 15, 1976 at his house at
Guinarona, Dagami, Leyte, by the same policemen who arrested Antonio Pingol in
company of the respondent and the two civilians, still using the Ford Fierra
vehicle of respondent who drove the same.”

In his comment, respondent countered that he has three (3) months
of unpaid bills as of June 15, 1976 not because of unwilling­ness to pay but
through the negligence of the Leyeco collector in not personally contacting
him; that he has been paying his bills regularly and it was the first time that
the bills accumulated be­cause there was no collector to whom to pay the bills;
that he even requested the collector to go to his house either on Saturdays or
Sundays, as in other days, respondent is in his office; that the balance of the
cost of the housewiring in the amount of P76.70 remained unpaid because
respondent’s request to Leyeco to change the faulty electrical switch was not
acted upon, and that payment of said balance would be made as soon as the
faulty switch is either changed or fixed; that the Leyeco crew were advised by
respondent’s caretaker to first see respondent in his office before cutting off
the electrical connection, but said crew were under the influence of liquor and
did not heed the advice; that he did not receive any disconnection order
fifteen (15) days in advance; and since there was no such notice, the
disconnection was malicious so that herein respondent immediately caused the
filing of the complaint and the issuance of a warrant of arrest which was
served by a member of the Burauen Integrated Police Force who requested the use
of respondent’s jeep in looking for the accused.  He also men­tioned about one Mrs. Florentina
Tolfo whose electric line was also disconnected by the same linemen, who urged
him to file complaint, as she herself would want to file one, feeling similarly
aggrieved.

The charge against respondent is for “Oppression, Arrogance,
Highhandedness and Malfeasance in the exercise of his duty as public officer of
the government”, but the attending circumstances do not show that
respondent is guilty as charged.  He was
prompted to file the complaint for malicious mischief in his honest belief that
the linemen, who were allegedly drunk when they went to disconnect respondent’s
electrical installation, and paid no heed to the request of respondent’s
caretaker to see the respondent before making the 1 disconnection, acted with malice.  Respondent received no prior notice of the
disconnection.  The notice which the
linemen was supposed to serve on him was not served, and it instead bears the
annotation:  “No occupant.”
(Exh. 1 & 1-a).  It was but natural
for him to feel that he was being unduly harrassed by the electric company manage­ment.  This feeling appears to be not without basis
considering that the Board of the company enacted a Resolution just after the
incident, or on July 11, 1976 “penalizing with indefinite disconnection or
sus­pension of electric service any consumer or member-consumer who files
criminal charges against LEYECO I or its duly authorized per­sonnel arising
from their performance of assigned duties” (Exh. 5, p. 53, Rollo).  To his request for reconnection on June 18,
1977, he was answered in a letter of the President of the company dated July 5,
1977 that by virtue of the aforementioned Resolution passed after the filing of
the case of malicious mischief, which to all appearances, was aimed precisely
against respondent, the request of respondent cannot be considered, not until
the criminal and ad­ministrative cases that arose from the stoppage of electric
service to respondent’s house shall have been resolved.  This means that until the present, the
re-connection would not be effected before the instant case is disposed of.

While in the view of the Investigator, there was arrogance if not
a misplaced sense of amor propio on the part of the respondent in
acting the way he did, We fail to see that respondent’s act of filing the
complaint for malicious mischief is so tainted. 
The complaint had the support of affidavits attesting to what respondent
felt was motivated by ill-will or malice on the part of the linemen.  They are supposed to serve notice of the
disconnection but they did not do so. 
The notice (Exh. 1) shows an annotation – “no occupant”.  The disconnection was done without anyone as
a witness.  Another party, one Mrs.
Florentina Tolfo whose electrical connection was similarly cut off, urged him
to file the case, as she herself wanted one filed.  The complaint was duly accepted and
preliminary examina­tion conducted before the warrant of arrest was
issued.  There was no irregularity in the
arrest attributable to respondent’s fault, as the electric company tried in
vain to pin responsibility on respondent for illegal arrest and arbitrary
detention with which the complainant charged respondent in the Provincial
Fiscal’s Office, which, however, after proper investigation, dismissed the
charge (Exh. 3, p. 56, Rollo).  Any
irregularity in this regard would be attributable to the Municipal Judge and
the Chief of Police, not to respondent, as the Investigator found.

A mere clerk in the Municipal Court, he could not have exerted
pressure or influence on the Municipal Judge, first to accept his complaint if
there was any impropriety in the filing thereof, and then to issue the warrant
of arrest, which was done only after pro­per preliminary examination as
required by law.  It is, therefore,
preposterous to charge that respondent acted with arrogance, oppression or
highhandedness, much less with malfeasance in the exercise of his duty as a
public officer.  In filing the complaint,
he acted as an ordinary private citizen who has the right to seek red­ress in
court if he honestly feels aggrieved.  He
was not alone in reacting to the disconnection of electric installation the way
he did, as stated earlier.  It cannot be
said in the instant case that respon­dent went beyond the simple exercise of
this right, with abuse or misuse of official influence which is hardly existent
in his position as a mere clerk in the municipal court, as against the
Municipal Judge and the Chief of Police of the town.  It is the electric com­pany that would seem
to be unduly harrassing the respondent when it passed the Resolution earlier
referred to under which respondent would be deprived of electrical service
while either the criminal case or the instant administrative case has not been
resolved, following the filing of this administrative complaint against
respondent, the ill motivation of which becomes thus very evident.

Anent the charge that respondent threatened the guard and maliciously
ordered him to lock up the two linemen inside the stinking and congested jail
instead of allowing them to sleep on the second floor of the municipal
building, complainant failed to fully substantiate the same for the guard
concerned was neither named nor presented during the hearing.  In any case, giving the linemen preferential
treatment not accorded to other detainees who are arrested by virtue of a
warrant, as the former have been, is not warranted, and if respondent had tried
to correct the improper act, he should not be punished therefor.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint is
hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Fenandez, Guerrero,
and Plana, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, C.J., concur with J.
Melencio-Herrera’s dissenting vote.