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...

Facts:

Parties and Context

• Complainant: Engr. Ruben L. Austria, the General Manager of the Leyte Electric Cooperative, Inc.
• Respondent: Eduardo Apa, Clerk of the Municipal Court of Burauen, Leyte, and a member-consumer of LEYECO I.
• Nature of the case: An administrative complaint was filed against respondent for alleged Oppression, Arrogance, Highhandedness, and Malfeasance in the exercise of his duty as a public officer.

Chronology of Events

• Delinquent Payment and Disconnection

- Respondent incurred a delinquency in paying his electric light bills for three months, amounting to P122.50. - An additional sum of P76.70 was due for the unpaid account concerning the installation of electric wiring at his residence. - Because of this accumulated debt, LEYECO I’s linemen, Justiniano Prado and Antonio Pingol, disconnected his electrical connection on June 15, 1976, around 3:30 p.m. - Upon learning of the disconnection, respondent attempted to contact the linemen without success. - He sent a telegram to the Manager of LEYECO I in Tolosa, Leyte, proposing a meeting at the Police Department of Burauen. - When the linemen failed to appear as expected, appellant Eduardo Apa, who also held the position of a clerk in the Municipal Court, prepared a complaint for Malicious Mischief against the linemen. - The Municipal Judge of Burauen, upon acting on the complaint, issued a warrant of arrest for both linemen. - The arrest of Antonio Pingol was executed around 7:00 p.m. by Burauen policemen utilizing the respondent’s own vehicle, a Ford Fierra, with the respondent driving and accompanied by two civilian companions. - Later, Justiniano Prado was arrested at approximately 9:45 p.m. at his residence.

Evidence and Findings from the Investigation

• Undisputed Facts

- The investigation reported by District Judge Temistocles B. Diez confirmed the sequence of events, including the disconnection, complaint filing, and subsequent arrest orders. - Documentary evidence (Exhibits and affidavits) supported the narrative that the linemen had failed to deliver the required notice prior to disconnecting the electrical service. - The disconnection notice bore the annotation “No occupant,” indicating the absence of proper notice. - Eduardo Apa contended that the accumulation of his unpaid bills was not due to unwillingness but to the negligence of the Leyte Electric Cooperative collector, who failed to personally collect the dues despite his regular payments. - He claimed that his electrical disconnection occurred without the legally mandated fifteen-day notice. - Respondent argued that his filing of a complaint for malicious mischief was an expression of his honest belief that the linemen, allegedly under the influence of liquor and ignoring proper protocol, acted with malice. - Additionally, he noted that a similar incident occurred with Mrs. Florentina Tolfo, whose electric service was also disconnected, prompting her to urge him to file a complaint. - A resolution by the Board of LEYECO I, passed on July 11, 1976, penalized members who initiated criminal charges against the electric cooperative or its personnel. This resolution, seen as a punitive measure against respondent, further complicated the matter as it directly affected his right to request reconnection of his service until the ongoing cases were resolved.

Issue:

Abuse of Official Position

• Whether a mere clerk in the Municipal Court, acting in a personal capacity, could be charged with abuse of his official influence when filing a complaint for malicious mischief.
• Whether respondent’s actions, though influenced by personal grievances, fell within the ambit of his rights as a private citizen or surpassed into the realm of malfeasance as a public officer.

Adequacy of Notice and Procedural Irregularities

• Whether the failure to serve the legally required disconnection notice (annotated “No occupant”) on the respondent could justify his reaction in filing the complaint.
• Whether any procedural irregularities in the arrest of the linemen could be attributed directly to the respondent’s conduct or to the actions of other officials (e.g., the Municipal Judge or police).

Motivation and Legitimacy of the Complaint

• Whether the underlying motive of filing the malicious mischief complaint was driven by genuine concerns for due process and redress or by an ulterior intent to challenge the practices of LEYECO I.
• Whether the subsequent administrative and criminal proceedings, including the electric company’s punitive resolution, vindicate or condemn the respondent’s actions.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)