Facts:

This administrative matter centers around a complaint filed by Presentation V. Anota against Agerico P. Balles, Clerk of Court IV of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Tacloban City, Leyte. The complaint was lodged through a letter dated June 23, 2004, addressed to then-Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. The complainant's husband, Felicisimo G. Anota, had served as the Clerk of Court in Tacloban City and was forced to retire due to serious health issues, including diabetes-related kidney problems that led to an amputation and frequent dialysis treatments; he subsequently passed away on June 21, 2004. Despite having submitted all necessary documentation for his retirement, he was unable to receive his retirement benefits because Atty. Balles withheld the requisite clearance, even though Mr. Anota had duly been cleared of any money and property accountability and had no pending administrative cases against him. In response to the compla

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Presentation V. Anota, the complainant, filed a letter complaint on June 23, 2004, addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
• The complaint pertained to the alleged unjust refusal by Atty. Agerico P. Balles, Clerk of Court IV of the Tacloban City MTCC, to issue the clearance required for the release of retirement benefits due to Presentation’s late husband, Felicisimo G. Anota.

Details of the Complaint

• Felicisimo G. Anota, a Municipal Trial Court Clerk of Court (MTCC-Branch I), was forced to retire at 63 years of age due to kidney problems related to diabetes.
• His health issues included undergoing an amputation and receiving dialysis twice a week for 19 months before his death on June 21, 2004.
• Although he filed all documents needed for retirement, the clearance from Atty. Balles was outstanding, which caused the delay and subsequent non-receipt of retirement benefits.

Role and Actions of Atty. Agerico P. Balles

• Atty. Balles refused to issue the clearance despite being aware that Felicisimo Anota had been cleared of money and property accountability and had no pending administrative case against him.
• In his comment on the 1st Endorsement of the complaint, Atty. Balles claimed that the clearance could not be issued because Presiding Judge Marino Buban opined that Mr. Anota had pending issues regarding missing court records, among others.

Investigation and Findings

• The matter was referred to the Tacloban City Regional Trial Court executive judge for investigation based on the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
• Several hearings were conducted by the investigating judge.
• The OCA, through its judicial audits (June 2000 and August 2003) and testimony from the incumbent MTCC Clerk of Court, confirmed that there was no missing court record in Tacloban City MTCC-Branch I and that Mr. Anota had fully accounted for all money and property under his custody.
• Based on these findings, the OCA determined that Atty. Balles’ refusal to issue the clearance amounted to oppression, as it prevented Mr. Anota from receiving retirement benefits that could have funded his medicine and hospital expenses during confinement.

Subsequent Developments and Final Administrative Action

• On March 28, 2006, Atty. Balles submitted a certification attesting that Felicisimo Anota had been cleared of money and property accountabilities.
• In 2009, Atty. Balles was dismissed from service in a separate administrative case (A.M. No. P-05-2065) for issues including delays in remittance, failure to keep proper records, and violations of Supreme Court Circulars No. 5-93 and No. 13-92.
• The disciplinary action involved his dismissal, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except already earned leave credits), and disqualification from reemployment in any government agency.
• Ultimately, since Atty. Balles’ dismissal from service had been implemented, the present administrative matter was rendered moot and academic.

Issue:

Justification of the Refusal to Issue Clearance

• Whether Atty. Balles’ refusal to issue the clearance for Felicisimo Anota’s retirement benefits was legally and administratively warranted.
• Whether the alleged pending issue, as per Presiding Judge Marino Buban’s comment regarding missing records, justified the non-issuance of clearance.

Compliance with Administrative and Judicial Procedures

• Whether the actions of Atty. Balles amounted to gross neglect of duty for failing to adhere to the required administrative processes (i.e., issuing the clearance).
• Whether established protocols under Supreme Court Circulars No. 5-93 and No. 13-92 were breached by delaying remittance of collections and failure to maintain proper records.

Impact of Subsequent Disciplinary Action

• Whether the subsequent dismissal of Atty. Balles from service and the forfeiture of his retirement benefits affected the pending administrative matter.
• Whether imposing further administrative penalties would be proper after his dismissal and the implementation of other sanctions (i.e., cancellation of civil service eligibility).

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)