Case Digest (A.M. No. 687-MJ, 703-MJ, 132-MJ)
Facts:
Abundio Siasico v. Municipal Judge Fortunato F. Sales (Adm. Matter Nos. 687‑MJ, 703‑MJ) and Ines Bandivas v. Municipal Judge Fortunato F. Sales (Adm. Matter No. 132‑MJ), May 31, 1976, Supreme Court En Banc, Munoz Palma, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Municipal Judge Fortunato F. Sales of Siayan, Zamboanga del Norte faced three administrative complaints: (1) absenteeism filed by Mayor Abundio Siasico (AM 687‑MJ); (2) extortion also lodged by Mayor Siasico (AM 703‑MJ); and (3) misappropriation filed by Ines Bandivas (AM 132‑MJ). The complaints were investigated by appointed investigators and their reports were forwarded to the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 7, Article X of the 1973 Constitution.
In AM‑687‑MJ, Mayor Siasico had the municipal police record numerous dates in 1972 when Judge Sales allegedly was absent from the municipal building; the police blotter and mayoral testimony recounted missed calendar hearings and occasions when the mayor administered oaths in lieu of the judge. Respondent admitted relocating his office to his residence and denied wrongful absence, asserting he worked from home, attended a municipal judges’ conference in Baguio in March 1972, was on sick leave in May 1972, and avoided hearings during heavy rains in late June; he produced some internal documents but not official approvals for leave. The District/Investigating Judge (Rafael T. Mendoza) found the evidence sufficient to recommend dismissal for gross violation of office‑hours and duty.
AM‑703‑MJ (extortion) grew out of the absenteeism complaint; complainant Siasico submitted several sworn statements alleging respondent demanded animals, cash, and other items from accused persons pending preliminary investigations. Respondent denied the charges, questioned the affidavits’ veracity, but admitted receiving P90.00 and P15.00 which he said were for typist services. Investigating Judge Dimalanes B. Buissan reported that complainant’s witnesses turned hostile at the hearing; nonetheless the investigator noted respondent’s partial admissions and the unrefuted sworn statements as grave.
AM‑132‑MJ arose from Bandivas’s deposit of 18 cavans of corn and 1½ cavans of palay with respondent for safekeeping in October 1971; she later alleged some of the cereals were sold or converted by respondent and that only 15 cavans were reported “stolen.” The investigator found the theft story improbable, noted unexplained disappearance of three cavans and the 1½ cavans of palay, and recommended separation from the service for conversion/misappropriation.
The Court heard the matters en banc (the record notes en banc hearings in 1974 and that the Court received investigating reports). After considering the investigators’ findings, documentary and testimonial evidence, and applicable law, the Supreme Court en banc found respondent guilty in AM‑687‑MJ and AM‑132‑MJ and ordered his removal with prejudice and forfeiture of retirement benefits; AM‑703‑MJ was closed for lack of evidence, although the investigator’s adverse observations were considered in imposing penalty on the other counts.
Issues:
- Was respondent guilty of absenteeism and neglect of duty for keeping his municipal court office at his residence and being frequently absent from the regular place of business (AM‑687‑MJ)?
- Did the evidence sustain a charge of extortion against respondent (AM‑703‑MJ)?
- Was respondent guilty of misappropriation/conversion of deposited cereals entrusted to him by Ines Bandivas (AM‑132‑MJ)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)