Arroyo vs. Alcantara

A clerk of court commits simple misconduct by exceeding their authority and using their position to summon private individuals for mediation, giving the impression of a court proceeding. Furthermore, deliberate failure to act on letters and requests within fifteen working days constitutes a violation of R.A. No. 6713, §5(a) and (d).

Complainant Antonio A. Arroyo filed an administrative complaint against Sancho L. Alcantara, Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court of Guinobatan, Albay. The complaint stemmed from Alcantara's issuance of a document that appeared to be a subpoena, directing Joaquin Opiana, Sr. (complainant's father-in-law) to appear at the MTC. The document was served by Barangay Captain Ruben Olayres, who had a dispute with the Opianas. Following the incident, Opiana, Sr. died, and complainant sought a copy of the subpoena and a certification from Alcantara, which the latter ignored or refused.

• The Disputed Document: On August 4, 1999, respondent issued a document to Joaquin Opiana, Sr., requiring his appearance before the MTC of Guinobatan, Albay. Barangay Captain Ruben Olayres served the document. Complainant alleged it was a subpoena, noting the words "Municipal Trial Court" were on it, and that its service distressed the seriously ill Opiana, Sr., hastening his death on August 27, 1999. Respondent claimed it was merely a letter typed on ordinary bond paper, requesting Opiana, Sr. to attend a meeting at the MTC in respondent's personal capacity to mediate a land dispute among the Opiana heirs at Olayres's insistence.
• Refusal to Act on Requests: On August 13, 1999, complainant sent a letter by registered mail requesting a copy of the document and a certification regarding its issuance. Respondent received it on August 16, 1999, but failed to act. On September 14, 1999, complainant sent a follow-up letter, which respondent twice refused to receive, claiming its contents were the same as the first. Complainant's subsequent request to examine court records was also denied.
• The Meeting: The meeting was held at respondent's office on August 5, 1999, during working hours. Joaquin Opiana, Jr. attended on behalf of his sick father. Opiana, Jr. testified that respondent asked for P5,000.00 during the meeting. Respondent countered that he merely advised Opiana, Jr. to raise money to pay the fees of a geodetic engineer for a land survey.
• Retirement: Pending the case, respondent applied for retirement effective June 30, 2000. The Court allowed the release of his retirement benefits minus P100,000.00 withheld pending final resolution.

• Violation of R.A. 3019: Petitioner argued that respondent, by issuing the document, conferred undue benefit upon Olayres and caused the latter to file a criminal case for assault against petitioner and his wife, constituting a violation of R.A. No. 3019, §3(e).
• Misconduct and Oppression: Petitioner contended that the issuance of a subpoena to a non-party hastened the death of his father-in-law and constituted oppression, misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
• Violation of R.A. 6713: Petitioner maintained that respondent's failure to act on his letters and requests violated R.A. No. 6713, §5(a) and (d).

• Nature of the Document: Respondent argued that the document was not a subpoena but a personal letter requesting attendance at a mediation meeting, typed on ordinary bond paper and written in only one copy intended for the addressee. He attributed the mistaken identity to the person who served it.
• Lack of Authority to Serve: Respondent contended that he was aware of the proper procedure for issuing subpoenas and would not have allowed a barangay chairman to serve one, as the rules do not authorize such.
• Denial of Solicitation: Respondent denied asking for P5,000.00 for himself, claiming he merely advised Opiana, Jr. to raise funds for a geodetic engineer's fees.

• Violation of R.A. 3019: Whether respondent is liable for violation of R.A. No. 3019, §3(e) for causing undue injury or conferring unwarranted benefits.
• Violation of R.A. 6713: Whether respondent violated R.A. No. 6713, §5(a) and (d) by failing to act on complainant's letters and requests.
• Misconduct: Whether respondent committed oppression, misconduct, or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service by issuing the disputed document.

• Violation of R.A. 3019: The charge was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The element of undue injury, interpreted as actual damage, was not proven, as complainant failed to establish that respondent asked for and received money. The mere filing of an assault case by Olayres did not prove that respondent accorded unwarranted benefit with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
• Violation of R.A. 6713: Respondent was found liable for violating §5(a) and (d) of R.A. No. 6713. Having deliberately failed to act on complainant's first letter and refused to receive the follow-up letter, respondent failed to extend prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public.
• Misconduct: Respondent was found guilty of simple misconduct. Although complainant failed to produce the alleged subpoena, evidence showed respondent issued a document purportedly from the MTC to summon Opiana, Sr. By allowing his position to be used to exercise moral ascendancy over the Opianas and giving the impression the meeting was court-related, respondent exceeded his authority. Furthermore, his refusal to act on requests violated R.A. 6713 and appeared intended to cover up his unauthorized act. The presumption that evidence willfully suppressed is adverse applied, as respondent failed to produce the purported letter he prepared and signed. A fine of P50,000.00 (equivalent to three months' salary) was imposed in lieu of suspension due to retirement, and a reprimand was issued for the R.A. 6713 violation.

• Presumption that suppressed evidence is adverse — When a party fails to produce evidence that is within their control, and they have knowledge of its existence and could reasonably produce it, the presumption arises that the evidence, if produced, would be adverse. Applied to find that respondent's failure to produce the disputed document he authored and signed raised the presumption that its contents would be adverse to his claim that it was a mere letter.
• Elements of R.A. 3019, §3(e) — To hold a person liable under this provision, the following must concur: (1) the respondent is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with the former; (2) the public officer committed the prohibited acts in the performance of official duties or in relation to public position; (3) he caused undue injury to any party; and (4) the public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Applied to dismiss the charge due to lack of proof of undue injury and manifest partiality.
• Simple Misconduct by Court Personnel — Court personnel exceed their authority and commit simple misconduct when they use their position to summon private individuals for mediation, giving the impression that the meeting is court-related, even if done with good intentions.

• "It is apparent that respondent had exceeded his authority as a clerk of court. He had, wittingly or unwittingly, allowed his position to be used to exercise his moral ascendancy over the members of the Opiana family, whom he summoned to his office for mediation. He gave the impression that such meeting was part of the proceedings of the court..."
• "Thus, his failure to present in evidence the purported letter raises the presumption against him that evidence willfully suppressed will be adverse if produced."

• Llorente, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 287 SCRA 382 (1998) — Cited as controlling precedent for the elements of violation of R.A. No. 3019, §3(e), specifically the requirement of undue injury interpreted as actual damage.
• Hemedes v. Court of Appeals, 316 SCRA 347 (1999) — Cited as authority for the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed will be adverse if produced, applied to respondent's failure to present the disputed document.
• Punzalan-Santos v. Arquiza, 244 SCRA 527 (1995) — Cited to support the duty of public officials to extend prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public under R.A. No. 6713.

• R.A. No. 6713, §5(a) — Requires public officials and employees to respond to letters and requests within fifteen (15) working days from receipt, with the reply containing the action taken. Applied to find respondent liable for ignoring complainant's first letter.
• R.A. No. 6713, §5(d) — Requires public officials and employees to act immediately on the public's personal transactions, attending promptly and expeditiously. Applied to find respondent liable for refusing to receive complainant's follow-up letter and denying access to court records.
• R.A. No. 3019, §3(e) — Prohibits causing undue injury to any party through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. Applied to acquit respondent due to lack of evidence of undue injury or bad faith.
• Rules of Court, Rule 131, §3 — Provides disputable presumptions, including the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. Applied to infer the nature of the document respondent failed to produce.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ.