G.R. No. 47495 - Texas Co. vs. Alonso

On December 27, 2019, a Letter-Complaint was filed by the complainant—using the nom de plume "Danilo D. Divinagracia"—against respondent Michael Vincent L. Ozon, Clerk III, Branch 1, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Butuan City, Agusan del Norte.
The complaint charged respondent with gross misconduct and violation of Republic Act No. 6713, alleging that he demanded money in exchange for the release of a certificate of finality in a case for declaration of nullity of marriage.
The complainant further alleged that respondent was engaging in “under-the-table” practices, a claim augmented by previous conduct during his tenure at the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially referred the matter to Executive Judge Augustus L. Calo on February 7, 2020, for a discreet investigation and report.
Subsequently, on May 28, 2020, respondent was served with a Notice to Explain and was directed to file a written explanation within five calendar days.

Denied all allegations, asserting he merely prepared trial court certificates of finality.
Claimed that the duty of releasing such certificates belonged to the Branch Clerk of Court, not him.
Denied previous "under-the-table" practices during his DPWH employment.
Explained that the familial relation with Judge Eduardo S. Casals (within the 5th degree of consanguinity) exempted him from the nepotism rules.

Atty. Joan B. Alabat-Torralba, the Branch Clerk of Court, provided a Comment on June 19, 2020, recounting:

Observations of respondent’s engagement in improper practices, including soliciting money for expediting the release of certificates of finality.
Incidents where respondent delayed the issuance of certificates until litigants paid presumptive fees ranging from PHP 500.00 to PHP 5,000.00.
Specific details of a litigant who, after paying a fee, found herself repeatedly visiting the court without receiving the certificate.

The Comment corroborated that Judge Casals had removed respondent’s duty in releasing certificates after complaints of alleged irregularities.
Additional corroboration came from private individuals (Affiant 1 and Affiant 2) through sworn affidavits:

Affiant 1 testified that she, acting as a secretary for a law practitioner, personally paid PHP 5,000.00 for each of 10 cases, and detailed conversations where respondent promised expedited processing through private courier service.
Affiant 2 provided an account of being offered facilitation services in her declaration of nullity case through text communication, promising expedited issuance upon payment.

An Investigation Report dated June 26, 2020, prepared by Executive Judge Calo revealed substantial evidence against respondent.
Thereafter, on August 19, 2020, a referral was made by the OCA for respondent to file his Comment regarding alleged corrupt practices, emphasizing compliance with procedural rules.
Respondent sought an extension on December 7, 2020, which was granted by Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez, but ultimately, his Comment was delayed and only filed on December 16, 2020.
The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) later issued reports on July 6, 2021, and October 5, 2022, both reiterating substantial evidence of respondent’s misconduct:

The reports found that respondent solicited money and used private courier services (instead of the required registered mail) to send decisions for annulment cases, thereby violating established rules.
The evidence demonstrated repeated conduct amounting to gross misconduct.

Respondent’s defense further included affidavits from petitioners in the 10 declaration of nullity cases mentioned by Affiant 1, which aimed to refute allegations of solicitation.
Respondent also attempted to undermine the credibility of Affiant 1 by citing unrelated criminal case outcomes against her husband; however, this argument was rejected as irrelevant by the investigating authorities.
Physical evidence, such as the timeline for the release of certificates (ranging from one to eight months versus the expedited three days promised by respondent), further reinforced the improper nature of his facilitation.

Whether respondent Michael Vincent L. Ozon is guilty of gross misconduct based on:

Allegations of demanding money from litigants in exchange for the expedited release of certificates of finality in annulment cases.
Offering private courier services to send case decisions to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contrary to the prescribed mode of sending via registered mail.

Whether such misconduct, if established, warrants the penalty of dismissal from service pursuant to applicable rules and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.