DFFDF
DFFDF
DFFDF
2. ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT
3
AGAINST EMELIANO C. CAMAY,
JR., UTILITY WORKER I, BRANCH
61, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BOGO CITY, CEBU
[A.M. No. P-17-3659. March 20,
2018.]
7. CONSOLIDATED CASES 14
AAA vs. ATTY. ANTONIO N. DE
LOS REYES [A.C. No. 10021.
September 18, 2018.] & AAA, , vs.
ATTY. ANTONIO N. DE LOS REYES
[A.C. No. 10022. September 18,
2018.]
1
JOVITA B. LAMSIS vs. JUDE F. SALES, SR., Process Server, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 10, La Trinidad, Benguet,
[A.M. No. P-17-3772, January 10, 2018.]
FACTS:
In an undated Complaint, Jovita narrated that she is an employee of
Sparrow Integrated Services, Inc., assigned as a janitress in the Hall of
Justice, Benguet from 2004 up to the present. On October 6, 2012, she
arrived at the RTC for her Saturday duty. While she was removing the
garbage from the trash bin located at the second floor of the HOJ she saw
respondent walking towards her, holding his private organ and showing it
to her. Shocked, she called respondent "bastos" and nervously ran to the
first floor to seek help. She claimed that it took her two days to muster the
courage to disclose her ordeal to her co-worker and later to the Vice
Executive Judge. She asserted that respondent's indecent act towards her
constitutes sexual harassment and prayed for his preventive suspension
pending investigation
The OCA recommended that the administrative complaint against
respondent for sexual harassment be dismissed for being premature and
that the entire records of the complaint be referred to the Committee on
Decorum and Investigation (CODI) for its corresponding action in
accordance with A.M. 03-03-13-SC.
In a Resolution , the Court adopted the OCA's recommendation.
Hence, in a Memorandum, the OCA referred the administrative complaint
to the Chairperson of the CODI, for corresponding action as
recommended.
The Report recommended the dismissal of the complaint for sexual
harassment against respondent, without prejudice to him being charged
of disgraceful and immoral conduct. The CODI found Jovita's allegations
as true, noting that respondent had been convicted of Unjust Vexation for
the same act, but ruled that respondent cannot be held liable for sexual
harassment due to the lack of the element of moral ascendancy over
Jovita. This notwithstanding, it found that respondent's actuation was
reprehensible and constituted disgraceful and immoral conduct in
violation of the Civil Service Rules.
In a Memorandum dated September 29, 2017, the OCA
recommended that: (a) the administrative complaint against respondent
be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and (b) respondent be
found guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct, this being his second
offense of the same nature; that he be dismissed from the service, with
forfeiture of his retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, if any,
and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government
service.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of disgraceful and immoral
conduct.
RULING:
Yes. Immoral conduct has been defined as conduct that is willful,
flagrant or shameless, showing moral indifference to the opinion of the
good and respectable members of the community, and includes conduct
inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency,
depravity and dissoluteness. Section 1 of the Civil Service Commission
Memorandum Circular No. 15, Series of 2010 particularly defines
disgraceful and immoral conduct as a willful act that violates the basic
norm of decency, morality and decorum abhorred and condemned by the
society.
In this case, the OCA's findings that respondent deliberately exposed
his private organ to Jovita and exhibited "gross sexual innuendo" are well
supported by the records. In this relation, the Court notes that respondent
was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Unjust Vexation for the
same acts by the Municipal Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet in a
Decision dated May 14, 2014, which conviction was subsequently
affirmed, on appeal, by the Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet,
Branch 63.
A final word. "It cannot be overstressed that the 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." Court
employees should be circumspect on how they conduct themselves in their
professional and private affairs in order to preserve the good name and
integrity of courts of justice. Respondent's actuation in this case is
reprehensible and has no place in any decent society, more so in the
premises of the HOJ that deserves respect from its employees even during
unofficial hours. This is a clearly offensive and indecent behavior which the
Court cannot countenance. Respondent was DISMISSED from the service
effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits.
2
ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST EMELIANO C. CAMAY, JR., UTILITY
WORKER I, BRANCH 61, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BOGO CITY, CEBU.
[A.M. No. P-17-3659. March 20, 2018.]
FACTS:
By letter dated February 18, 2003, an anonymous complainant
charged Emeliano C. Camay, Jr., the Utility Worker 1 of Branch 61 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Bogo City, Cebu with various serious offenses.
The complainant alleged that Camay, a married man, had been cohabiting
with a woman who was not his wife, and they had a son by the name of
Junmar; that he had been serving as the contact person of a surety
company in the posting of surety bonds in the RTC; that for every 10 bonds
processed, he would receive the proceeds for the 11th bond; that he had
allowed a representative of the surety company to wait at his table, beside
the desk of the clerk of court; that he was the owner of a big house, a
motorcycle, and an iPhone; that he had demanded P20,000.00 for the
entertainment of the Presiding Judge Antonio D. Marigomen; and that he
had a collection of pictures of naked girls in his phone that he showed to
anyone interested in engaging in sexual activity for money.
The complaint was referred to Executive Judge Teresita Abarquez-
Galandia of the RTC in Mandaue City for discreet investigation.
The files of Camay in the Office of Administrative Services of the Office
of the Court Administrator (OCA) showed that Camay was married to Mary
Joy Y. Santiago; that his Personal Data Sheet (PDS), BIR form No. 2305 and
SALN for 2003 carried the notation of "married/but separated in fact"
regarding his civil status; that he had left blank the space for the name of
his spouse in the forms for 2002; that he declared as a dependent child in
his undated BIR Form No. 2305 one "Jumar Guevarra Camay," who was
born on July 25, 2001; and that his PDS and SALN for various periods from
2005 to 2011 revealed a Jumar Camay, born on July 25, 2002, as one of his
children below 18 years of age.
It appeared in Camay's SALNs for 2001, 2003 and 2004 that he had a
house worth between P40,000.00 and P60,000.00 in Taytayan Hills, Bogo
City but without any indication on the date of his acquisition; that in 2009,
he declared his acquisition in that year of a house and lot worth
P350,000.00 in Taytayan; that in his 2011 SALN, he declared the same
property to be worth at P500,000.00; that he did not declare any real
property in his SALNs for 2002, 2007 and 2008; that he also declared in his
SALN dated April 20, 2012 a motorcycle worth P45,000.00 acquired in
2002, and another one worth P68,900.00 acquired in 2012; that his SALNs
showed that he did not have any other source of income like business
interests or financial connections; and that his monthly salary was his only
source of income.
The OCA, agreeing with the report and recommendation of Judge
Galanida, recommended that Camay be found and declared guilty of
disgraceful and immoral conduct punishable under Section 46, Rule 10 of
the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) for
cohabiting with a woman who was not his wife, and having a child with her;
that he be also held to have violated Section 8, in relation to Section 11, of
Republic Act No. 6713 for failing to properly disclose his real property in
several of his SALNs; and that on the matter of bail bond fixing, he be found
to have facilitated or secured bail bonds in violation of Administrative
Circular No. 5, series of 1988.
ISSUE:
Whether Camay may be found guilty of immorality, disgraceful
conduct and bail bond fixing
RULING:
Yes. On the issue of immorality, Camay admitted to cohabiting with a
woman who was not his wife and to having a child with her despite his
marriage to his wife not having been legally severed. As such, the finding of
the OCA that Camay was guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct is
upheld. In Anonymous v. Radam, the Court declared that "if the father of the
child born out of wedlock is himself married to a woman other than the
mother, there is a cause for administrative sanction against either the
father or the mother. In such a case, the 'disgraceful and immoral conduct'
consists of having extramarital relations with a married person."
Furthermore, we uphold the recommendation of the OCA on Camay's
surety bail fixing activities. Prosecutor Moralde attested that it was public
knowledge in the RTC that Camay was the man to approach if any party
wanted to post surety bail because he could facilitate the reduction of the
recommended amounts of the bail; and that Camay transacted in behalf of
the Plaridel Surety and Insurance Company, the only surety company
authorized to transact in Branch 61 of the RTC. Notwithstanding the lack of
direct evidence proving his having acquired financial gain from the bond
transactions, the fact that he had assisted and facilitated the processing of
the bail requirements for parties with cases in the RTC constituted
substantial evidence of such financial gain on his part.
Finally, the finding that Camay did not consistently declare his true
assets and actual net worth in his SALNs is upheld. He declared the house
and lot located in Taytayan Hills in his SALNs for 2001, 2003, and 2004 but
did not indicate the date of acquisition of such property. He again
intermittently declared the property in 2009 and 2011. He did not declare
the property in 2002, 2007, 2008 and 2010. His omissions violated the
letter and spirit of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713, which requires all
public officials and employees to accomplish and submit a declaration of
assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests, including
information on real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed
value and current fair market value.
Lastly every person who serves in the Judiciary should heed the
following reminder issued in Office of the Court Administrator v. Juan:
xxx Court employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk,
being public servants in an office dispensing justice, should always act with
a high degree of professionalism and responsibility. Their conduct must not
only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be in
accordance with the law and court regulations. No position demands
greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than an office
in the judiciary. Court employees should be models of uprightness,
fairness and honesty to maintain the people's respect and faith in the
judiciary. They should avoid any act or conduct that would diminish
public trust and confidence in the courts. Indeed, those connected
with dispensing justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility.
3
JILDO A. GUBATON vs. ATTY. AUGUSTUS SERAFIN D. AMADOR
[A.C. No. 8962. July 9, 2018.]
FACTS:
Atty. Augustus Serafin D. Amador, a former Assistant Prosecutor at
the City Prosecutor’s Office in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, was allegedly
having an illicit romantic relationship with Jildo Gubaton’s wife, Ma.
Bernadette R. Tenorio-Gubaton, since 2005 up to the present.
Gubaton averred that his house helper said that a certain “Fiscal
Amador” often visits Bernadette and would spend nights at their house in
Bernadette’s bedroom. When Gubaton called Bernadette's dental clinic to
verify the information, the secretary confirmed that Atty. Amador and
Bernadette have been carrying on an illicit affair.
Further, complainant discovered birth-control pills and condoms in
their house, in Bernadette's dental clinic, and in her handbag. When he
confronted her about it, she merely denied ownership thereof. He also
alleged that Bernadette wrote love letters/notes to respondent, where one
of these letters had the word "fiscal" on it.
Gubaton likewise alleged that he personally saw respondent and
Bernadette together in various places in Malaybalay City. At one instance,
he saw them kissing while inside a vehicle; when he approached to
confront them, respondent ran away.
Atty. Amador denied all the allegation and claimed to be merely
acquainted with Bernadette.
The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) dismissed of the affidavit-complaint for insufficiency of
evidence but reversed the Report and Recommendation and instead,
suspended Atty. Amador.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court found Atty. De Los Reyes guilty of gross immoral
conduct and violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
The pertinent provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility
read:
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01. — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
integrated bar.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 7.03. — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public
or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
It was held in Valdez v. Dabon that, the possession of good moral
character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to
warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the legal
profession. Any errant behavior, be it in their public or private life, may
subject them to suspension or disbarment. Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court expressly states that members of the Bar may be disbarred
or suspended for any deceit, grossly immoral conduct, or violation of their
oath.
In Ventura v. Samson, we explained that immoral conduct involves
acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral
indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the
community. It is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act,
or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when
committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock
the community's sense of decency.
Atty. De Los Reyes is guilty of "sextortion" which is the abuse of his
position or authority to obtain sexual favors from his subordinate, the
complainant, his unwilling victim who was not in a position to resist
respondent's demands for fear of losing her means of livelihood. All these
deplorable acts of respondent Atty. De Los Reyes puts the legal profession
in disrepute and places the integrity of the administration of justice in peril,
thus warranting disciplinary action from the Court.
In the present case, respondent’s actions show that he lacks the
degree of morality required of him as a member of the legal profession,
thus warranting the penalty of disbarment.