Title
Zari vs. Flores
Case
A.M. No. P-1356
Decision Date
Nov 21, 1979
Deputy Clerk Flores dismissed for libel conviction, undue influence, gross discourtesy, and falsification of documents, undermining judicial integrity.

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-1356)

Facts:

  • Complaint by Presiding Judge Remigio E. Zari (July 15, 1976)
    • Conviction for libel on April 28, 1967 (Criminal Case No. Q-7171, Branch IV, CFI Quezon City), fined ₱500 (paid July 18, 1974).
    • Persistent attempts to unduly influence Branch VI cases, evidenced by handwritten notes and leading to respondent’s relief on March 8, 1976.
    • Gross discourtesy to superior officers by using strong, contemptuous language in a letter dated March 11, 1976.
  • Procedural History and Pleadings
    • Supreme Court resolution (July 29, 1976) required respondent’s answer; case assigned to First Division.
    • Respondent’s answer (Aug. 12, 1976): denied moral turpitude in libel, justified notes and letter as expressions of grievance, alleged Judge Zari’s undue instructions, and claimed a spirit of friendship.
    • Complainant’s reply: denied all undue instructions, clarified lunch and ocular inspection incidents, insisted on safeguarding records, and charged false statements in respondent’s 1969 affidavit and civil service form.
  • Investigation and Recommendation by Executive Judge Sergio A. F. Apostol
    • Referral for investigation after other judges inhibited.
    • Findings:
      • Libel conviction involves moral turpitude.
      • Handwritten notes demonstrate undue influence.
      • March 11, 1976 letter shows gross discourtesy and insubordination.
      • False sworn statement in appointment papers constitutes prevarication.
    • Recommendation: separation from service with forfeiture of retirement privileges and prejudice to future government employment.

Issues:

  • Does the respondent’s libel conviction involve moral turpitude under PD 807, Sec. 36(b)?
  • Did the respondent unduly influence cases pending before Branch VI through handwritten notes?
  • Did the respondent exhibit gross discourtesy and insubordination toward superior officers in his March 11, 1976 letter?
  • Did the respondent commit prevarication by falsely declaring no criminal record in his appointment documents?
  • What disciplinary measure is appropriate for the respondent’s combined misconduct?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.