EN BANC
A.M. No. CA-20-36-P, August 03, 2021
DR. VIRGILIO S. RODIL, Complainant, v. IMELDA V. POSADAS, RECORDS OFFICER II, REPORTERS DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
This administrative matter stemmed from the findings in a Per Curiam Decision1 of the Court in Administrative Case No. (AC) 10461 entitled Dr. Virgilio S. Rodil v. Atty. Andrew Carro, Samuel Ancheta, Jr. and Imelda Posadas. In the said case, the Court imposed the penalty of disbarment upon Atty. Andrew Carro (Atty. Carro) and ordered the Office of the Administrative Services (OAS) of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals (CA) to conduct the corresponding investigations on Samuel Ancheta, Jr. (Ancheta)2 and the subject of the instant case, Imelda V. Posadas (Posadas), respectively.
1) | For the initial reading of the case: P800,000.00 on April 22, 2013 given by Dr. Rodil to Posadas who turned over the cash to Ancheta for delivery to Atty. Carro; |
2) | For the "review" of the case: P700,000.00 on August 12, 2013, again given by Dr. Rodil to Posadas who passed it on to Ancheta for transfer to Atty. Corro; |
3) | For an advanced copy of the draft decision of acquittal: P5,000,000.00 on December 13, 2013, when Dr. Rodil personally met Atty. Corro and his friend Rico Alberto, at Max's Restaurant; and |
4) | For the advanced copy of the final decision of acquittal bearing the Supreme Court logo, signed by the ponente and sealed: P3,500,000.00 on February 21, 2014, which Dr. Rodil also gave to Atty. Carro with Rico Alberto as witness.4 |
The Report and Recommendation8 of the Investigating Panel of the Court of Appeals:9 |
Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. -Without a doubt, Posadas violated the aforementioned provisions. She acted contrary to law, good morals and public policy when she participated in case-fixing. Additionally, she divulged confidential information when she informed Dr. Rodil about the assignment of the case to the office of then Associate Justice Villarama, when such fact should have been kept classified. It is quite impossible for Posadas not to have been aware of the ramifications of her actions. She should have realized that as soon as the prospect of exchanging money for information and "favors" became manifest, she already became an active participant to the commission of corrupt acts.
(A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:
x x x
(c) Justness and sincerity. - Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. x x x
x x x
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
x x x
(c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential information. - Public officials and employees shall not use or divulge, confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public, either:
(1) To further their private interests, or give undue advantage to anyone; or
(2) To prejudice the public interest.18chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Indeed, "no position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than [in the judiciary].21 Those connected with the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowliest clerk, carry a heavy burden of responsibility."22 Simply put, "[t]he image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel."23 As an appellate court employee, Posadas was bound to observe these standards.CANON I FIDELITY TO DUTY
SECTION 1. Court personnel shall not use their official position to secure unwarranted benefits, privileges or exemptions for themselves or for others.
SECTION 2. Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any explicit or implicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions.
SECTION 3. Court personnel shall not discriminate by dispensing special favors to anyone. They shall not allow kinship, rank, position or favors from any party to influence their official acts or duties.
x x xCANON II
CONFIDENTIALITY
SECTION 1. Court personnel shall not disclose to any unauthorized person any confidential information acquired by them while employed in the Judiciary, whether such information came from authorized or unauthorized sources.
x x xCANON IV
PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES
SECTION 1. Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during work hours.
x x x
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:Under this provision, the persons liable are: "(1) the public officer who persuades, induces, or influences another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, and (2) the public officer who allows [himself/herself] to be so persuaded, induced, or influenced."41 Evidently, Posadas, along with Ancheta, persuaded, induced, or influenced Atty. Corro to commit a corrupt act in relation to the lawyer's official duties as part of the confidential staff of then Associate Justice Villarama. It was Posadas who actively sought to find a contact in the Supreme Court to help Dr. Rodil, knowing fully well that what was being pursued would constitute as an illegal act. To emphasize, Posadas actively participated in the corrupt transactions for without her, the acts characterized as violating anti-graft laws would. not have been successfully realized.
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
Section 22. Serious Charges. - Serious charges include:However, in view of the guidelines provided in Dela Rama and Section 50 of the 2011 RRACCS, as well as for purposes of uniformity and consistency, Posadas should be held liable for one (1) count of such offense under the 2011 RRACCS (the prevailing rules at the time of the commission of the offenses) and not Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC, in order not to prejudice her. Under the 2011 RRACCS, particularly Section 46 (A) (8), Committing Acts Punishable Under the Anti-Graft Laws should be penalized in this manner:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
x x x
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019)[.]
x x x
Section 25. Sanctions. -
A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credit;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P100,000.00 but not exceeding P200,000.00.42chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 46. Classification of Offenses. - Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.Withal, by Committing Acts Punishable Under the Anti-Graft Laws in accordance with the 2011 RRACCS, Posadas committed a grave offense which is already punishable by dismissal from the service even on the first offense. In contrast, Section 46 (B) (8) of the 2011 RRACCS punishes Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service with suspension for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense. It must be underscored that Section 50 of the 2011 RRACCS directs that if the respondent is found guilty of two (2) or more charges, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered aggravating circumstances. Thus, pursuant to Section 50 of the 2011 RRACCS and the Dela Rama rule, the offense of Committing Acts Punishable Under the Anti-Graft Laws is the most serious charge considering the prescribed penalty therefor. As such, Posadas should be meted with the penalty of dismissal from the service along with the accessory penalties.
A. The following grave offenses shall be punishable by dismissal from the service:
x x x
8. Receiving for personal use of a fee, gift or other valuable thing in the course of official duties or in connection therewith when such fee, gift or other valuable thing is given by any person in the hope or expectation of receiving a favor or better treatment than that accorded to other persons, or committing acts punishable under the anti-graft laws:43 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 4-17.
2 Ancheta was already dismissed from the service in view of the Court's ruling in A.M. No. 2019-17-SC dated February 18, 2020.
3Rollo, pp. 48-49.
4 Id. at 49.
5 Id. at 49-50.
6 Id. at 50.
7 Id.
8 Inv. Ref. No. 08-2019-RSF dated November 12, 2019; In Re: Supreme Court Per Curiam Decision dated July 30, 2019 in A.C. [No.] 10461; penned by Atty. Miriam M. Alfonso-Bautista, Executive Clerk of Court III and noted by Atty. Anita S. Jamerlan-Rey, Clerk of Court.
9 Committee on Ethics and Special Concerns, composed of Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo (Chairperson), Celia C. Librea-Leagogo (Co-Chairperson), Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla (Member), and Rafael Antonio M. Santos (Member), recommended the approval; CA Presiding Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando approved the Report and Recommendation.
10Rollo, pp. 50-51.
11 Id. at 51.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 52.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 133, § 6: "That amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion."
18 Republic Act No. 7163, Sections 4 (A) (c) and 7 (c).
19Office of the Court Administrator v. Fuensalida, A.M. No. P-15-3290, September 1, 2020.
20 A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, June 1, 2004.
21 Anonymous Complaint Against Edmundo P. Pintac, A.M. Nos. RTJ-20-2597, P-20-4091, RTJ-20-2598, RTJ-20-2599, September 22, 2020.
22 Id. citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Nacuray, 521 Phil. 38 (2006).
23Office of the Court Administrator v. Ampong, 735 Phil. 14, 22 (2014) citing Igoy v. Atty Soriano, 527 Phil. 322, 327-328 (2006).
24Rollo, p. 22.
25 Id. at 23.
26 Id. at 41.
27Retired Employee v. Manubag, 652 Phil. 491, 500-501 (2010) citing Adm. Case for Dishonesty & Falsification Against Luna, 463 Phil. 878, 889 (2003).
28Re: Incident Report of the Security Division, Office of Administrative Services, on the Alleged Illegal Discharge of a Firearm at the Maintenance Division, Office of Administrative Services, A.M. No. 2019-04-SC (Resolution), June 2, 2020 citing Duque v. Calpo, A.M. No. P-16-3505, January 2019.
29Re: Samuel Ancheta, Jr., A.M. No. 2019-17-SC, February 18, 2020 citing Fajardo v. Coral, G.R. No. 212641, July 5, 2017.
30Valdez v. Soriano, A.M. No. P-20-4055 (Resolution), September 14, 2020 citing Daplas v. Department of Finance, 808 Phil. 763, 772 (2017).
31 Id., citing Fajardo v. Corral, 813 Phil. 149, 158-159 (2017).
32 CSC Resolution No. 11-01502, November 8, 2011.
33See also: 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, §50 (B) (10).
34 The first paragraph of Rule 140, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, as amended by the Resolution dated October 2, 2018 in A.M. No. 18-01-SC, provides:
Section 1. How Instituted. - Proceedings for the discipline of Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals and Judges and personnel of the lower courts, including the Shari'a Courts, and the officials and employees of the Office of the Jurisconsult, Court Administrator, Deputy Court Administrator, Assistant Court Administrator and their personnel, may be instituted, motu propio, by the Supreme Court, in the Judicial Integrity Board. (Emphasis supplied)
35 Establishment of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) and the Corruption Prevention and Investigation Office (CPIO), October 2, 2018.
36 The first paragraph of Rule 140, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, as amended by the Resolution dated July 7, 2020 in A.M. No. 18-01-SC, states:
Section 1. How Instituted. - Proceedings for the discipline of the Presiding Justices and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Shari'ah High Court and Judges of the lower courts, including the Shari'ah District or Circuit Courts, and the officials and employees of the Judiciary, Court Administrator, Deputy Court Administrators, Assistant Court Administrators and their personnel, may be instituted, motu propio, by the Supreme Court, in the Judicial Integrity Board. (Emphasis supplied)
37 A.M. No. P-14-3240, March 2, 2021.
38 A.M. No. RTJ-18-2520, October 9, 2018. The said case supplied the following guidelines:
(a) Rule 140 of the Rules of Court shall exclusively govern administrative cases involving judges or justices of the lower courts. If the respondent judge or justice of the lower court is found guilty of multiple offenses under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the Court shall impose separate penalties for each violation; and
(b) The administrative liability of court personnel (who are not judges or justices of the lower courts) shall be governed by the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which incorporates, among others, the civil service laws and rules. If the corresponding court personnel is found guilty of multiple administrative offenses, the Court shall impose the penalty corresponding to the most serious charge; and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.
39 CSC Resolution No. 11-01502, November 8, 2011, § 50.
Section 50. Penalty for the Most Serious Offense. - If the respondent is found guilty of two (2) or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.
40See also: 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, § 55.
Section 55. Penalty for Multiple Offenses. - If the respondent is found guilty of two (2) or more different offenses, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious offense and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.
In case the respondent is found guilty of two or more counts of the same offense, the penalty shall be imposed in the maximum regardless of the presence of any mitigating circumstance.
41See: Reyes, Luis, B. "The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law, Book Two, Articles 114-367", 2017 Edition, p. 418. See also: Boado, Leonor D. "Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law: Books I & II, Revised Penal Code and Special Laws", Second Edition, p. 247.
42See: A.M. No. 21-03-17-SC or the "Amendments to the Fines Provided in Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court" (May 31, 2021).
43 CSC Resolution No. 11-01502, November 8, 20ll, § 46 (A) (8); See also: 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, § 50 (A) (8).
44Rollo, p. 27.
45Re: Samuel Ancheta, Jr., supra note 29, citing Committee on Security and Safety, Court of Appeals v. Dianco, A.M. No. CA-15-31-P, June 16, 2015.
46 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), § 48 (g), (j), (m), (n), and (o); See also: 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, § 53 (f), (i), (l), (m), and (n).
47 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), § 51 (a): "The penalty of dismissal shall result in the permanent separation of the respondent from the service, without prejudice to criminal or civil liability;" See also: 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, § 56 (a).
48 "As a matter of fairness and law, government employees should not be deprived of the leave credits they earned prior to their dismissal"; Civil Service Commission v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 248255, August 27, 2020.
49See also: 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, § 57 (a), which adds that "[t]erminal leave benefits and personal contributions to Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), Retirements and Benefits Administration Service (RBAS) or other equivalent retirement benefits system shall not be subject to forfeiture.
50See: Office of the Court Administrator v. Del Rosario, A.M. No. P-20-4071, September 15, 2020 which nonetheless fined one of the respondents notwithstanding her resignation and Office of the President v. Cataquiz, 673 Phil. 318-350 (2011), which still imposed the accessory penalties in view of the respondent's removal from office.cralawredlibrary