A.M. No.
CA-05-20-P September 9, 2005
Callejo, Sr., J. En Banc
Facts:
Melchor Lagua was found guilty of homicide. Lagua, who was
then detained at the Bureau of Prisons National Penitentiary filed a Very
Urgent Petition for Bail. The appellate court issued a Resolution directing him
to post a bond. Lagua’s bond was approved, and the appellate court also
directed the issuance of an order of release in favor of Lagua. The resolution
was then brought to the Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Atty. Maria
Isabel M. Pattugalan-Madarang, for promulgation.
The respondent, Cielito Salud, Clerk IV, Mailing Section of
the Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals, 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. 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. Atty. Madarang then called the said
court and asked to speak to Ms. Valdez, pretending to be Lagua’s relative.
Atty. Madarang secured Salud’s mobile phone number from Ms.
Cecil Secarro, the Acting Chief of the Mailing Section and started texting him.
She represented herself as Arlyn, Lagua’s relative. While she was in the
office, she texted Salud for his whereabouts and he replied, that he was on his
way back to Quezon City. That was before 4 p.m., adding that his deliveries
were ok.
Atty. Madarang personally called up the Bureau of Prisons for
the exact time the Order of Release was delivered and when accused appellant
Lagua was released and learned that the Order of Release was received at 9:15
A.M. and that Lagua was released between 5-5:30 P.M. of November 7, 2003.
On November 11, 2003, Atty. Madarang brought Salud,
accompanied by Ms. Secarro to Justice Magtolis. Out of the confrontation, we
discovered that Salud did not properly serve the copies of the Resolution and
Order of Release upon the accused-appellant and his counsel. He gave them to a
certain Art, allegedly Lagua’s relative who he claimed approached him at the
Bureau of Prisons in the morning of November 7, 2003. He told Justice Magtolis
that he gave these documents to Art, who promised to take care of them, even
before he could deliver the copy addressed to the Director of Prisons. He never
mentioned that this Art was connected with the office of accused-appellant’s
counsel.
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" 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.
Justice Magtolis requested that Cielito Salud be subjected to
an administrative investigation and disciplinary action.
In an Investigation Report, Atty. Longalong found that the
respondent was guilty as charged; that he is also liable for having financial
or material interest in an official transaction considering his undue interest
in the service of the order of release and actual release of Lagua to the point
of staying almost the whole day in the Bureau of Prisons and the aborted
"deal" as can be concluded from the phone call of Melissa Melchor to
Atty. Madarang and subsequent exchange of text messages with Atty. Madarang
disguising as Lagua’s relative. …
Issue:
Whether or not the exchange of text
messages between Atty. Madarang and herein respondent is admissible as evidence
in an administrative case.
Ruling:
On the charge of inefficiency, the respondent is clearly
administratively liable. After serving Lagua’s copy of the resolution and order
of release to the prison Director, he should have immediately returned to his
station or served the other resolutions and documents for personal service. As
an officer of the court, the respondent plays an essential part in the
administration of justice. He is required to live up to the stringent standards
of his office, and his conduct must, at all times, be above reproach and
suspicion. He must steer clear of any act which would tend to undermine his
integrity, or erode somehow the people’s faith and trust in the courts.
To determine the credibility and probative weight of the
testimony of a witness, such testimony must be considered in its entirety and
not in truncated parts. To determine which contradicting statements of a
witness is to prevail as to the truth, the other evidence received must be
considered. Thus, while it is true that there is no direct evidence that the
respondent received any money to "facilitate" the release of detained
Lagua, the following circumstances must be taken as contrary to the
respondent’s plea of innocence:
First. The respondent admitted that he was the sender of the
first three text messages in Atty. Madarang’s cellphone: "bkit, C rhodora
to"; "CNO KAMAGANAK AT ANONG PANGALAN MO"; and "SINO K KC
NAGHIWALAY N KAMI."
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.
The respondent’s claim that the admission of the text
messages as evidence against him constitutes a violation of his right to
privacy is unavailing. Text messages have been classified as "ephemeral
electronic communication" under Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence, and "shall be proven by the testimony of a person who
was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof." Any question
as to the admissibility of such messages is now moot and academic, as the
respondent himself, as well as his counsel, already admitted that he was the
sender of the first three messages on Atty. Madarang’s cell phone.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, respondent Cielito M. Salud is
found GUILTY of inefficiency and gross misconduct. He is SUSPENDED for a period
of One (1) Year and Six (6) Months, effective immediately. He is further
DIRECTED to inform the Court as to the date of his receipt of this Decision to
determine when his suspension shall have taken effect.
The Office of the Court Administrator is also DIRECTED to
conduct a discreet investigation on the possible involvement of Rhodora Valdez
(Utility Worker), and other personnel of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig
City, Branch 163.