Case Digest (A.M. No. P-1328)
Facts:
This case involves an administrative complaint filed by Engr. Ruben L. Austria, the General Manager of the Leyte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LEYECO I), against Eduardo Apa, the Clerk of the Municipal Court of Burauen, Leyte. The complaint, dated November 27, 1981, alleges oppression, arrogance, highhandedness, and malfeasance in the performance of his duties as a public officer. The complaint was referred to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte for investigation, where District Judge Temistocles B. Diez of Branch IX conducted the inquiry and submitted a report recommending a severe reprimand for Apa.
The facts of the case reveal that Eduardo Apa, a member-consumer of LEYECO I, had incurred a delinquency in his electric bill payments amounting to P122.50 for three months, along with an additional P76.70 for unpaid wiring installation. On June 15, 1976, linemen from LEYECO I disconnected his electrical service due to these unpaid bills. Upon learning of...
Case Digest (A.M. No. P-1328)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Complainant: Engr. Ruben L. Austria, General Manager of the Leyte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (LEYECO I).
- Respondent: Eduardo Apa, Clerk of the Municipal Court of Burauen, Leyte.
Background of the Case:
- Eduardo Apa, a member-consumer of LEYECO I, incurred a delinquency in paying his electric bills for three months, amounting to P122.50, plus an unpaid balance of P76.70 for the installation of electric wirings in his house.
- Due to the unpaid bills, LEYECO I linemen, Justiniano Prado and Antonio Pingol, disconnected Apa’s electrical connection on June 15, 1976, at around 3:30 PM.
Respondent’s Actions:
- Upon learning of the disconnection, Apa attempted to contact the linemen but failed. He then sent a telegram to the LEYECO I Manager, requesting a meeting with the linemen at the Burauen Police Department.
- When the linemen did not appear, Apa, as a clerk of the Municipal Court, prepared a complaint for Malicious Mischief against the linemen. The Municipal Judge issued a warrant of arrest for Prado and Pingol.
- On the same day, Pingol was arrested at around 7:00 PM, and Prado was arrested at around 9:45 PM. Both arrests were carried out by Burauen policemen using Apa’s Ford Fierra vehicle, which he drove himself.
Respondent’s Defense:
- Apa claimed that his unpaid bills were due to the negligence of the LEYECO collector, who failed to personally contact him. He also stated that he had requested the collector to visit his house on weekends, as he was unavailable on weekdays.
- He argued that the disconnection was malicious because he did not receive a 15-day advance notice, as required.
- Apa further claimed that the linemen were under the influence of alcohol and ignored his caretaker’s request to first consult him before disconnecting the power.
Additional Context:
- LEYECO I passed a resolution on July 11, 1976, penalizing consumers who file criminal charges against the company or its personnel with indefinite disconnection of electric service.
- Apa’s request for reconnection was denied based on this resolution, pending the resolution of the criminal and administrative cases.
Issue:
- Whether Eduardo Apa, as a public officer, committed Oppression, Arrogance, Highhandedness, and Malfeasance in filing a criminal complaint against the LEYECO I linemen and participating in their arrest.
- Whether Apa abused his position as a clerk of the Municipal Court to unduly influence the filing of the complaint and the issuance of the arrest warrant.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Eduardo Apa for lack of merit. The Court found that Apa acted within his rights as a private citizen in filing the complaint for Malicious Mischief and did not abuse his position as a public officer.
Ratio:
Right to Seek Redress:
- Apa, as a private citizen, had the right to file a complaint if he honestly believed he was aggrieved. The filing of the complaint was supported by affidavits and was accepted by the Municipal Judge after a proper preliminary examination.
No Abuse of Authority:
- As a mere clerk in the Municipal Court, Apa did not have the authority or influence to pressure the Municipal Judge or the Chief of Police to act on his complaint. The issuance of the arrest warrant followed legal procedures, and any irregularities would be attributable to the Judge or the police, not Apa.
No Evidence of Oppression or Malfeasance:
- The circumstances did not show that Apa acted with arrogance, oppression, or highhandedness. His actions were motivated by a genuine belief that the linemen acted maliciously in disconnecting his power without proper notice.
LEYECO’s Harassment:
- The Court noted that LEYECO I’s resolution to indefinitely disconnect consumers who file criminal charges against the company appeared to be aimed at harassing Apa, especially since his reconnection request was denied pending the resolution of the case.
Unsubstantiated Allegations:
- The charge that Apa threatened the guard and ordered the linemen to be locked in a congested jail was not substantiated, as the guard was neither named nor presented during the hearing.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that Eduardo Apa did not commit any act constituting oppression, arrogance, highhandedness, or malfeasance. He acted within his rights as a private citizen, and the complaint against him was dismissed.