Adm. Matter No. P-2328, P-2386 - IN RE: Valencia vs. Lopez, Jr.

Case Summary (Adm. Matter No. P-2328, P-2386)

Factual Background

In Administrative Matter No. P-2328, the Tamaya Transit was discovered missing on April 21, 1979 by Edwin C. Bijasa, a security guard. Bijasa reported the matter to respondent, who was then the officer-in-charge. Instead of inquiring or reporting the loss to the Executive Judge, respondent instructed Bijasa to keep quiet and to allow the loss to be discovered when the exhibit would be withdrawn for trial. The fact of loss was not reported to the Executive Judge until September 24, 1979, when Manuel D. Sindac, a clerk, filed the report.

The investigation conducted by Judge Valencia established that before April 21, 1979, Bijasa had taken the Tamaya Transit out of the lower section of a cabinet where exhibits were kept and had placed it on top of a table of Clerk III Sindac, apparently for “fun” despite the Executive Judge’s prohibition against moving or touching exhibits. The investigation further found that the wooden cabinet had a lock but could be opened easily, and that the missing transit was noticed by Bijasa at about 9:30 in the morning of April 21, 1979.

On the same day, Bijasa informed court stenographers of his concern and went to Gimena to ask whether Gimena had transferred the transit. Cortez advised Bijasa to report the matter to the clerk of court officer in charge, and Gimena told Bijasa to report because Gimena was the one who had found the item missing. When respondent arrived, Bijasa reported the missing exhibit in the presence of witnesses, but respondent ordered them to keep silent and stated that if they divulged the matter they might be removed from their jobs. Respondent also gave Bijasa time to locate the transit and discouraged immediate reporting to a District Judge.

Judge Valencia’s findings added that between April 21, 1979 and September 24, 1979, respondent delayed reporting the loss. Although Bijasa later reported the missing exhibit to Sindac on September 19, 1979, Sindac filed the letter-report to the Executive Judge only on September 24, 1979. Judge Valencia noted that no evidence showed that anyone actually took the transit; thus, he recommended no charge based on proof of the identity of the taker. However, he found that Bijasa’s earlier handling of the exhibit greatly aided its disappearance and that respondent’s deliberate failure to report the loss immediately hindered the solution of the matter.

In Administrative Matter No. P-2386, Judge Valencia’s investigation concerned the Actus calendar wrist watch, described as an exhibit in Criminal Case No. 553. The investigation found that in September 1978, after Sindac returned from leave, he discovered that the watch was no longer in the safe steel cabinet where it was kept separately from other exhibits because the Clerk of Court was on terminal leave. Sindac approached respondent, who admitted taking the watch and initially refused to return it. Sindac repeatedly demanded return but respondent failed to do so. Sindac said he requested a receipt, and respondent issued one. Sindac also stated that respondent did not report the matter to the Executive Judge, because respondent believed the case had already terminated and that a case would surface only when the owner filed a motion to withdraw the exhibit, and because respondent believed that the receipt already issued to Sindac could protect him.

The investigation produced multiple sightings of the watch outside the custody of the court. Court personnel allegedly saw the watch being worn or handled by respondent and by other persons. The narrative recounted that in November 1978, the watch was seen worn by a prostitute whom the observer believed to be Elizabeth Luzon. In 1979, Bijasa saw respondent wear it outside. The investigation also stated that Luzon was reported as saying the watch came from a beer house and that she would bring the watch to the Judge if respondent did not pay his debts. It was also claimed that in February 1979, the watch was seen in a repair shop and that it had been brought by someone from the courthouse. In April 1979, Gofredo allegedly saw Rudy Gimena wear it. After April 1979, the watch was said not to have been seen until it appeared again in September 1979, when it was reportedly worn by respondent and then by Wilfredo Ferreras during a burial and almost every day thereafter.

The investigation further described an event on October 9, 1979, during the investigation of another matter in chambers. Respondent allegedly entered the office of Sindac and handed a watch to Sindac, with Bijasa testifying that the watch was returned. Sindac then gave it to Teodoro Dajoras, a laborer-clerk-designate, who was instructed to place it in another safe steel cabinet where exhibits were placed. Around the same time, Ferreras allegedly informed others that they had redeemed the watch from Mando Valenzuela and mentioned that the watch had already been pawned to several persons.

The investigation characterized the period from late September 1978 up to October 9, 1979—when respondent returned the watch—as a span of more than one year during which the watch was not in the possession of the Office of the Clerk of Court.

Administrative Court Findings and Recommendations

Judge Valencia’s findings in Administrative Matter No. P-2328 emphasized the custodial duties of a clerk of court and found that respondent’s conduct was improper and suspicious in light of his failure to inform the Executive Judge immediately. Judge Valencia found that the deliberate delay greatly hindered the investigation, and he described Bijasa as officious and unfit for the position, noting that Bijasa’s temporary appointment was not renewed.

As to respondent in Administrative Matter No. P-2328, Judge Valencia found that respondent admitted he never reported the loss immediately or thereafter, and the reasons advanced related to pity for the security guards and a belief that reporting would risk removal from employment. Judge Valencia held that respondent should have known that immediate reporting to the Executive Judge was necessary to start appropriate steps to resolve the problem. He recommended only admonition for respondent for that particular failure.

In Administrative Matter No. P-2386, Judge Valencia addressed whether respondent pawned the exhibit watch or his claimed personal watch. Judge Valencia concluded that respondent pawned the exhibit watch. He anchored this conclusion on several circumstances: first, the watch was missing from the Office of the Clerk of Court for more than one year; second, respondent never showed it to Sindac during that period; third, respondent issued a receipt confirming possession in a way that Judge Valencia found incongruous with respondent’s claim of an easily accessible watch that could have been shown; fourth, when the watch was returned on October 9, 1979, it was done while another administrative matter was being investigated, and it was accompanied by statements that the watch had been redeemed from a pawned holder; and fifth, respondent failed to support his claim that he had pawned his own watch with an account involving the alleged sale of his personal watch to a cousin.

Judge Valencia recommended reprimand for respondent in Administrative Matter No. P-2386 as a consequence of these findings.

Referral for Final Review and the Court’s Adoption of the Recommended Penalty

The two administrative matters were referred to Deputy Court Administrator Romeo D. Mendoza for study, report, and recommendation. The recommendation, as adopted by Justice Lorenso Relova, then Court Administrator, found respondent guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. It recommended separation from the service accompanied by forfeiture of all retirement benefits and pay, and with prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of the government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities. The Court agreed with this recommendation.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court held respondent guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and it ordered that respondent be separated from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and pay, and with prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of government or any government agency or instrumentality. The decision was SO ORDERED.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

In its reasoning, the Court treated respondent’s acts relating to the seized exhibits as demonstrating a glaring unfitness for a position requiring integrity and trustworthiness. The Court underscored that the duties of a clerk of court include the custody and care of exhibits, as well as the duty to safely keep all records, papers, files, public property committed to the office, including the library, seals, and furniture. It emphasized t

Case Syllabus (Adm. Matter No. P-2328, P-2386)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The case comprised two administrative matters involving exhibits in criminal cases filed with the Court of First Instance of Aurora at Baler.
In Administrative Matter No. P-2328, the respondent was Salvador Lopez, Jr., formerly Acting Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of Aurora.
In Administrative Matter No. P-2386, the same respondent was similarly implicated as the person in official custody of another lost exhibit-watch.
Executive Judge Ernesto P. Valencia of the Court of First Instance of Aurora was the petitioner.
Judge Valencia conducted investigations and made findings and recommendations on the loss of the Tamaya Transit and the Actus calendar wrist watch.
The cases were referred to Deputy Court Administrator Romeo D. Mendoza for study, report, and recommendation.
The recommendation of Mendoza, concurred in by Justice Lorenso Relova, then Court Administrator, was adopted by the Court.
The Court agreed with the recommendation and imposed the penalty of separation from the service with the specified forfeitures and disqualifications.
The disposition was rendered by the SECOND DIVISION with concurring justices including Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin.

Key Factual Allegations

In Administrative Matter No. P-2328, a Tamaya Transit exhibit in Criminal Case No. 533 was discovered missing on April 21, 1979.
The missing exhibit was first noticed by Edwin C. Bijasa, a security guard of the court, while checking the office area where exhibits were kept.
Upon reporting to the respondent, the respondent did not inform the Executive Judge and instead advised Bijasa to keep quiet so the loss would be discovered when the exhibit would be withdrawn for trial.
The record showed that the respondent’s inaction delayed the formal reporting of the loss to the Executive Judge until September 24, 1979, when Manuel D. Sindac filed a letter addressed to the Executive Judge.
Judge Valencia found that sometime before April 21, 1979, Bijasa had taken the transit from a lower portion of a wooden cabinet and placed it on the table of Sindac for the purpose of peeping, despite the Executive Judge’s prohibition on moving or touching exhibits.
Judge Valencia further found that when the transit was noticed missing on April 21, 1979, Bijasa reported the matter in the presence of relevant personnel, but the respondent instructed them to keep silent and warned that disclosure might lead to removal from their jobs.
Judge Valencia found that respondent pitied the security guards and therefore dissuaded immediate reporting to higher authority, while repeatedly reminding them to exert effort to locate the transit and to report results to him.
The investigation also indicated there was no evidence that anyone other than the involved personnel took the transit, and no charge was recommended against a specific individual for the act of taking.
The judge nevertheless highlighted two aggravating features: Bijasa’s unauthorized handling of the exhibit and the respondent’s deliberate failure to report the loss promptly, which hindered solution efforts.
In Administrative Matter No. P-2386, the Actus calendar wrist watch exhibit in Criminal Case No. 553, People vs. Wilfredo Azarias for theft, was found missing from the safe steel cabinet in which it was kept separately.
The watch had been missing for a prolonged period from September 1978 (after Sindac returned from leave) until its “return” on October 9, 1979.
Judge Valencia credited testimony that the respondent admitted taking out the watch and wearing it for a few hours and that he issued a receipt acknowledging possession.
Multiple witnesses observed the watch being worn or handled by people connected to the court and other persons, including references to Elizabeth Luzon, Wilfredo Ferreras, and the Max Repair Shop where it was reported as a court watch.
Judge Valencia found that the respondent’s explanation—that he pawned and used his own watch, not the exhibit-watch—did not merit belief when measured against the circumstances of disappearance and the manner of receipt issuance and later handling.
The findings included that on October 9, 1979, respondent handed the watch to Sindac, who then gave it to Teodoro Dajoras to place in another safe steel cabinet, while Ferreras allege