VIDALLON-MAGTOLIS
VS. SALUD
A.M.
No. CA-05-20-P
September 9, 2005
AS AGAINST RIGHTS OF PRIVACY
Cielito
Salud, Clerk IV, Mailing Section of the Judicial Records Division, Court of
Appeals (CA) stands charged with the following offenses:
1. Inefficiency
and incompetence in the performance of official duties;
2. Conduct
grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service; and
3. Directly
or indirectly having financial and material interest in an official
transaction, under Section 22, paragraphs (p), (t) and (u), Rule XIV of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law.
Facts:
Melchor
Lagua was found guilty of homicide in Criminal Case Nos. 118032-H and 118033-H
before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. On appeal, the case was assigned
to the Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CR No.
27423. Lagua, who was then detained at the Bureau of Prisons National
Penitentiary in Muntinlupa City, filed a Very Urgent Petition for Bail. Finding
the petition well-taken, the appellate court issued a Resolution on October 9,
2003, directing him to post a P200,000.00 bond.
Irma
Del Rosario, Utility Worker, noticed the respondent’s unusual interest in the
Lagua case. The respondent had apparently been making inquiries whether the
appellate court had already directed the issuance of an order of release in the
said case and was initially told there was none yet. Due to his persistence,
the records of the case were eventually found. Atty.
Madarang then directed the typing of the Order of Release Upon Bond,and to
notify the mailing section that there were orders requiring
personal service. At around 4:00 p.m., the respondent then went to Atty.
Madarang’s office and assisted in arranging and stapling the papers for
release. He brought the said resolutions and other papers himself to the
Mailing Section.
On
November 7, 2003, the respondent went to the National Penitentiary to serve the
resolution and order of release in the Lagua case. The respondent left the prison compound at around 2:30 p.m. In the meantime, Atty.
Madarang received a telephone call from a certain Melissa Melchor, who
introduced herself as Lagua’s relative. It was about 2:00 p.m. The caller asked
her how much more they had to give to facilitate Lagua’s provisional liberty.
The caller also told Atty. Madarang that they had sought the help of a certain
Rhodora Valdez of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, where the criminal
case originated, but were told that they still had a balance to be given to
Justice Magtolis and Atty. Madarang through the respondent. Atty. Madarang then
called the said court and asked to speak to Ms. Valdez, pretending to be
Lagua’s relative.
On
November 11, 2003, Justice Magtolis called the respondent to her office. When
confronted, the respondent denied extorting or receiving money for Lagua’s
release, or in any other case. He, however, admitted serving the copies of
resolution and order of release intended for Lagua and his counsel to Art
Baluran. Justice Magtolis then called the respondent to a
meeting with Clerk of Court Atty. Tessie L. Gatmaitan, who stated that she
would transfer the respondent to another office which has nothing to do with
cases.
Justice
Magtolis lodged the complaint against the respondent in a Letter dated November
14, 2003, containing, among others, the following allegations:
The delivery of resolutions/orders to
unauthorized persons and “complete strangers” who promised to “take care
thereof” (“siya na raw ang bahala”) constitutes not only neglect of duty but
also conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Staying for the
whole day within the vicinity of the National Bilibid Prisons to the point of
failing to fulfill his other duties for the day constitutes inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of official duties. On the other hand, the use
of my name and that of our Division Clerk of Court to illegally solicit
financial or material benefit from parties with pending cases before this Court
is illegal per se.
In view of the foregoing, it is
respectfully requested that Cielito Salud be subjected to an administrative
investigation and disciplinary action.
In
his counter-affidavit, the respondent vehemently denied the charges. He
never demanded money from Lagua’s relative; his name had been used by someone
and was, thus, a mere victim of the circumstances. Moreover, the fact that he
immediately released the CA order in question was clear proof that he had no
financial interest in the transaction.
As
pointed out by the Investigating Officer, the respondent’s claim of “joking
around” (“nakipaglokohan”) with an unknown sender of a text message by
replying thereto is contrary to a normal person’s reaction. This is made even
more apparent by the fact that the respondent even admitted that he called Atty.
Madarang twice, and when asked why, gave a vague answer, and, when further
questioned, even broke down in tears.
Issue:
Whether
or not admission of text messages is a violation of right to privacy.
Held:
No.
… The text messages were properly
admitted by the Committee since the same are now covered by Section 1(k), Rule
2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, which provides:
“Ephemeral electronic communication”
refers to telephone conversations, text messages … and other electronic forms
of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained.”
Under Section 2, Rule 11 of the [said
rules], “Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony
of a person who was a party to the same or who has personal knowledge thereof …
.” In this case, complainant who was the recipient of the said messages and
therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified on their contents and
import. Respondent herself admitted that the cellphone number reflected in
complainant’s cellphone from which the messages originated was hers. Moreover,
any doubt respondent may have had as to the admissibility of the text messages
had been laid to rest when she and her counsel signed and attested to the
veracity of the text messages between her and complainant. It is also well to
remember that in administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and
evidence are not strictly applied. We have no doubt as to the probative value
of the text messages as evidence in determining the guilt or lack thereof of
respondent in this case.
The
respondent’s actuations fall short of the standard required of a public
servant. He is guilty of gross or grave misconduct. Misconduct is a
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act,
a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or
wrong behavior, while
“gross,” has been defined as “out of all measure; beyond allowance; flagrant;
shameful; such conduct as is not to be excused.”Under the Omnibus Civil Service
Rules and Regulations, grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal from the
service even for the first offense, as it is classified as a grave offense.
However, considering that the respondent has not been previously charged nor
administratively sanctioned, the Court finds that a penalty of suspension for
one year and six months will serve the purpose of disciplining the respondent.
Court
personnel, from the lowliest employee to the clerk of court or any position
lower than that of a judge or justice, are involved in the dispensation of
justice, and parties seeking redress from the courts for grievances look upon
them as part of the Judiciary. They serve as sentinels of justice, and any act
of impropriety on their part immeasurably affect the honor and dignity of the
Judiciary and the people’s confidence in it. Thus, any conduct which tends to diminish
the image of the Judiciary cannot be countenanced.
IN
LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING,
respondent Cielito M. Salud is found GUILTY .
