A.M. No. P-23-077 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 20-5026-P - Danilo D. Divinagracia vs. Michael Vincent L. Ozon, Clerk III, Branch 1, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-23-077 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 20-5026-P)

Factual Background: Allegations and Initial Administrative Actions

In his Letter-Complaint dated December 27, 2019, complainant alleged that he requested from Branch 1 of the RTC, Butuan City, a certificate of finality of the decision rendered in his case for declaration of nullity of marriage. Complainant claimed that respondent, who was a son-in-law of a judge, asked him to pay PHP 25,000.00 for the release of the certificate of finality. Complainant also asserted that respondent had previously engaged in “under-the-table” and “S.O.P.” arrangements during his employment with the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).

By the 1st Indorsement dated February 7, 2020, the OCA referred the matter to Executive Judge Augustus L. Calo of the RTC in Butuan City for a discreet investigation and report. Respondent received a Notice to Explain dated May 28, 2020 on June 1, 2020, requiring a written explanation within five calendar days. Respondent submitted a handwritten explanation dated June 5, 2020, denying the accusations and asserting that he merely prepared the certificates of finality while the Branch Clerk of Court handled release.

Respondent also denied the claim of unlawful facilitation or corrupt dealings from his prior employment, and he addressed the allegation of nepotism by explaining that Judge Eduardo S. Casals was his relative within the fifth degree of consanguinity, and thus, he argued, the rule on nepotism did not apply. He further challenged the complainant’s allegations by demanding that his accusers appear personally to settle the issue.

Executive Judge’s Investigation: Comment, Administrative Proof, and Findings

After Executive Judge Calo requested input from the Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Joan B. Alabat-Torralba, the latter submitted a Comment dated June 19, 2020. Atty. Alabat-Torralba reported that she learned of respondent’s illegal involvement in the service of decisions in nullity cases. She stated that Judge Casals directed her to remove from respondent the duty of releasing certificates of finality after learning that respondent had delayed release to a lawyer who refused to give money. She also narrated a concrete incident where a litigant allegedly paid respondent PHP 500.00 but was not issued the certificate of finality despite repeated court visits; she claimed that she reprimanded respondent, ordered the return of the PHP 500.00, and reported the matter to Judge Casals.

Atty. Alabat-Torralba further stated that the court’s legal researcher informed her that the client of a lawyer-friend was cajoled by respondent into paying PHP 5,000.00 so that the copy of the decision for the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) could be sent via private courier service instead of registered mail. She stated that, to prevent similar events, Acting Presiding Judge Emmanuel E. Escatron issued a Memorandum dated June 15, 2020 directing respondent to refrain from having any hand in the service of decisions to parties in civil cases.

On respondent’s work performance, Atty. Alabat-Torralba declared that respondent was often tardy or absent, left the office without permission, failed to update docket and logbooks, and incurred delays in transmittal of case records to the Court of Appeals.

Executive Judge Calo then obtained sworn statements from two private individuals, Affiant 1 and Affiant 2, whose identities were kept confidential. Affiant 1’s affidavit narrated that respondent told her he had a friend working at the OSG, that respondent could cause notices and return cards to come back within three days by mailing through a private courier together with PHP 5,000.00, and that respondent indicated he had helped clients in serving decisions to the OSG. She claimed that, from 2017 to February 2020, she paid respondent PHP 5,000.00 per case for ten cases, and she provided case titles and docket numbers. Atty. Brainard J. Morales, Clerk of Court V, certified that the listed decisions involved petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage granted by the RTC.

Affiant 2’s affidavit alleged that, in January 2020, she met respondent at the trial court while following up her case. Respondent gave her a cellphone number, and in February 2020, after she sought an update through text message, respondent allegedly told her that if she was in a hurry, he could expedite the certificate of finality by sending a copy of the decision to the OSG through private courier upon payment of PHP 5,000.00. Affiant 2 stated that her lawyer advised her to “refrain from doing anything that is stupid.” She further alleged that respondent delayed and eventually told her during May 2020 that he would prioritize her case but that delay was due to the mailing of the decision through the Post Office.

In an Investigation Report dated June 26, 2020, Executive Judge Calo found substantial evidence to hold respondent guilty of Gross Misconduct. The OCA thereafter referred the matter to respondent for comment through an OCA Indorsement dated August 19, 2020, with compliance requirements tied to A.M. No. 10-3-7-SC and A.M. No. 11-9-4-SC.

OCA and JIB Proceedings; Respondent’s Comment and Defenses

Respondent sought extensions to file a comment. Although the Court granted one extension, the records reflected that respondent had not filed the required comment by the time it was expected. Ultimately, the JIB and the Court considered respondent’s submissions in the proceedings. The Supreme Court later issued a Resolution dated April 25, 2023 furnishing respondent Atty. Alabat-Torralba’s Comment and directing respondent to file his comment thereon within a non-extendible period of ten days. The Court noted that respondent’s earlier comment dated December 16, 2020 was deemed as compliance with that Resolution.

In his comment dated December 16, 2020, respondent denied that he demanded PHP 25,000.00 from complainant for release of a certificate of finality. He argued that complainant’s allegations were untrue, insisting that: (a) soliciting money from litigants was against the law; (b) when complainant wrote his Letter-Complaint on December 27, 2019, respondent already had been relieved from releasing certificates of finality; and (c) his responsibility was only to prepare the certificates while the branch clerk released them. He also denied approaching Affiant 1 and did not accept the claim that he offered to expedite release in three days.

In support of his denial, respondent submitted affidavits from petitioners in the ten cases referenced by Affiant 1, namely Junilo B. Galos, Genalyn S. Hofelina, and Nelissa B. Cacho. They uniformly attested that respondent never contacted them and never asked for money in exchange for early release of certificates of finality. However, respondent’s submission included an admission by Affiant 1, through the affidavit of Cacho, acknowledging that she communicated with Affiant 1 regarding a separate facilitation offer tied to registration with the Philippine Statistics Authority.

Respondent also contended that the certificates of finality in Affiant 1’s cases were released from one month up to eight months after promulgation, with an average of six months, not in three days. He added that if Affiant 1’s allegations were true, he would have extended the same facilitation to her; instead, he pointed out that the certificate of finality in Affiant 1’s case was issued five months after the decision was rendered. He further attacked Affiant 1’s credibility by citing a Judgment in a criminal case filed by Affiant 1 under Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, resulting in acquittal of her husband. Respondent also denied that he texted or communicated with Affiant 2, arguing that if a text message had indeed been sent, Affiant 2 would have presented a printed copy and would have mentioned the number that texted her.

The JIB’s evaluations, however, were adverse to respondent. In a Report and Recommendation dated July 6, 2021, the JIB recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be found guilty of Gross Misconduct warranting dismissal from service, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment. Later, in a Report dated October 5, 2022, the JIB reiterated its recommendation and specified dismissal with prejudice to reinstatement or appointment in any government agency and with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits.

Core Issues

The Supreme Court framed the principal question as whether respondent should be held guilty of Gross Misconduct warranting the penalty of dismissal from service.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Gross Misconduct Through Corruption and Law-Violative Conduct

The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of Executive Judge Calo and the JIB. It held that respondent was administratively liable for Gross Misconduct on two principal grounds: first, that he demanded money from litigants for the release of certificates of finality; and second, that he sent copies of the decisions in annulment and declaration of nullity cases pending before the RTC to the OSG via private courier in exchange for money.

The Court began with the definition of misconduct as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. It emphasized that misconduct becomes gross when elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, and flagrant disregard of established rule are present.

As to the alleged demand for money for certificates of finality, the Court found the elements of corruption and intent to violate the law satisfied. It acknowledged that respondent denied demanding money. Yet, it held that respondent’s denial was self-serving and weak against the positive testimony of Atty. Alabat-Torralba. The Court relied on Atty. Alabat-Torralba’s account that a litigant came crying after failing to receive a certifi

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-23-077 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 20-5026-P)

The case involved a letter-complaint filed by Danilo D. Divinagracia against Michael Vincent L. Ozon, Clerk III of Branch 1, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, for Gross Misconduct and alleged violation of Republic Act No. 6713.
The Court treated the matter as an administrative case and ultimately found respondent administratively liable for Gross Misconduct, imposing the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Complainant initiated the proceedings through a Letter-Complaint dated December 27, 2019.
Respondent was served a Notice to Explain dated May 28, 2020 from Executive Judge Augustus L. Calo, requiring submission within five calendar days.
Respondent submitted a handwritten explanation letter dated June 5, 2020, denying the accusations.
The OCA referred the matter for discreet investigation and report to the Executive Judge through a 1st Indorsement dated February 7, 2020.
Executive Judge Calo secured sworn statements and a comment from the Branch Clerk of Court.
The OCA later referred the complaint to respondent for a comment relative to the alleged corrupt practices through a 1st Indorsement dated August 19, 2020.
Respondent requested an extension of time to file the comment and later filed a comment dated December 16, 2020, which the Court ultimately deemed compliance with the April 25, 2023 directive.
The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) submitted a recommendation finding respondent guilty of Gross Misconduct, and the Court reviewed the complete record.

Key Factual Allegations

Complainant alleged that he requested from Branch 1, RTC Butuan City a certificate of finality in his case for declaration of nullity of marriage.
Complainant alleged that respondent, described as a son-in-law of a judge, asked for PHP 25,000.00 for the release of the certificate of finality.
Complainant alleged that he later encountered other people who experienced the same kind of predicament with respondent.
Complainant alleged that respondent previously worked at the DPWH, where “under-the-table” and “S.O.P.” arrangements were apparently practiced.
The allegations against respondent included both demands for money and facilitation practices in the processing of decisions for finality and service to the OSG.
The administrative case theory focused on two connected schemes: (1) demanding money for release of certificates of finality, and (2) expediting service of decisions to the OSG via private courier in exchange for payment.

Investigation and Evidence Sources

Executive Judge Calo directed respondent to explain, and respondent denied the accusations on record.
The Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Joan B. Alabat-Torralba, submitted a Comment describing specific incidents supporting the accusation of irregular facilitation and delay.
Atty. Alabat-Torralba reported that after learning of respondent’s conduct, Judge Casals directed her to remove from respondent the duty of releasing certificates of finality.
Atty. Alabat-Torralba recounted an incident where a litigant who paid PHP 500.00 to respondent cried after failing to receive the certificate of finality.
Atty. Alabat-Torralba also narrated that the litigant of a lawyer-friend was allegedly cajoled into paying PHP 5,000.00 to enable the decision copy for the OSG to be sent by private courier rather than registered mail.
Acting Presiding Judge Emmanuel E. Escatron issued a Memorandum directing respondent to refrain from having a hand in the service of decisions to parties in civil cases.
Executive Judge Calo gathered sworn statements from Affiant 1 and Affiant 2, whose identities were to be kept confidential.
Affiant 1 alleged that respondent offered expedited return of notice cards to parties to take effect within three days by using a private courier for decisions sent to the OSG, in exchange for PHP 5,000.00, and that she personally gave respondent PHP 5,000.00 for each of ten cases between 2017 and February 2020.
Atty. Brainard J. Morales, Clerk of Court V, certified that the decisions in the cases enumerated by Affiant 1 involved petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage granted by the RTC.
Affiant 2 alleged that respondent offered to expedite the certificate of finality by having a copy of the decision sent to the OSG via private courier upon payment of PHP 5,000.00.
The JIB later found the private-courier and facilitation details to be substantiated by the record and respondent’s acts.

Respondent’s Defenses

Respondent denied demanding money from complainant for the release of certificates of finality.
Respondent countered that complainant’s letter-complaint was filed when respondent had already been relieved by Judge Casals of duties involving the release of certificates of finality.
Respondent claimed that his responsibility was limited to preparing or encoding certificates, while the branch clerk was in charge of releasing them.
Respondent denied any “under-the-table” or “S.O.P.” dealings during his employment at the DPWH.
Respondent argued that the allegation of nepotism did not apply because Judge Casals was related to him within the fifth degree of consanguinity.
Respondent attacked the credibility of Affiant 1, including by asserting that Affiant 1 was a “blatant liar.”
Respondent supported his denial by submitting affidavits from other petitioners, including Junilo B. Galos, Genalyn S. Hofelina, and Nelissa B. Cacho, who claimed respondent never contacted them to ask for money for early release.
Respondent conceded that his accusers had communicated with Affiant 1, but maintained that respondent did not contact and solicit money from them.
Respondent challenged Affiant 2’s narrative by arguing that if she texted him, she would have presented a printed copy of the text message and identified the phone number used.
Respondent argued that the certificates of finality were released not in days but within one month to eight months after promulgat