Case Digest (A.M. No. P-23-077 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 20-5026-P)
Case Digest (A.M. No. P-23-077 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 20-5026-P)
Facts:
Danilo D. Divinagracia v. Michael Vincent L. Ozon, A.M. No. P-23-077 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 20-5026-P), January 30, 2024, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The complainant, writing under the nom de plume Danilo D. Divinagracia, filed a Letter‑Complaint dated December 27, 2019, accusing Michael Vincent L. Ozon, Clerk III of Branch 1, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Butuan City, of demanding money for the release of certificates of finality and of other corrupt practices. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the matter to Executive Judge Augustus L. Calo for discreet investigation on February 7, 2020. Respondent received a Notice to Explain dated May 28, 2020, and submitted a handwritten explanation on June 5, 2020, denying the allegations and contending that he only prepared certificates of finality while the Branch Clerk of Court released them. He also denied prior improper conduct at the DPWH and asserted that nepotism rules did not apply because his relationship with Judge Eduardo S. Casals was within the fifth degree of consanguinity.The Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Joan B. Alabat‑Torralba, submitted a Comment (June 19, 2020) recounting: she learned respondent had been removed from releasing certificates after a litigant who paid PHP 500 complained that the certificate had not been issued; she had ordered respondent to return the money; and a legal researcher told her respondent had solicited PHP 5,000 to send a copy of decisions for the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) via private courier instead of registered mail. Acting Presiding Judge Emmanuel E. Escatron issued a June 15, 2020 memorandum directing respondent to desist from participating in the service of decisions. The Branch Clerk also alleged habitual tardiness, failure to update dockets, and delays in transmittals to the Court of Appeals.
Executive Judge Calo obtained sworn affidavits from two private witnesses. Affiant 1, a law secretary, stated respondent offered to have decisions sent to the OSG by private courier for PHP 5,000 and that she personally paid respondent PHP 5,000 for each of ten annulment/nullity cases between 2017 and February 2020; she supplied case titles and docket numbers. A certification from a Clerk of Court V confirmed those cases granted declarations of nullity. Affiant 2, a petitioner in a nullity case, averred respondent offered the same PHP 5,000 facilitation but she declined. Executive Judge Calo’s Investigation Report (June 26, 2020) found substantial evidence of gross misconduct.
The OCA re‑indorsed the complaint and requested respondent’s formal Comment (August 19, 2020). Respondent sought and received an extension to file his Comment; he later submitted a Comment dated December 16, 2020 (filed February 15, 2021), denying the PHP 25,000 allegation, reiterating that he only prepared certificates, and offering affidavits from ten petitioners who said respondent did not solicit them (though several acknowledged contact with Affiant 1). He pointed out defendant certificates were issued within one to eight months. The Comment was eventually considered by the Court after a Resolution dated April 25, 2023.
The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) and OCA investigators (Reports and Recommendation, July 6, 2021; JIB Report, October 5, 2022) concluded respondent was guilty of gross misconduct, recommending re‑docketing as a regular administrative matter and dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits. The JIB found respondent mailed copies of decisions in declaration of nullity cases to the OSG via private courier and obtained signed return cards the same way, and that he solicited money from litigants on multiple occasions—violations of Canon I, Sections 1 and 2, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. The matter reached the Supreme Court by administrative complaint (A.M. No. P-23-077), and the Court resolved the case En Banc.
Issues:
- Is respondent Michael Vincent L. Ozon guilty of gross misconduct for (a) demanding money from litigants for the release of certificates of finality and (b) sending copies of decisions in annulment/nullity cases to the Solicitor General via private courier in exchange for money, warranting dismissal from the service?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)