A.M. No. P-220 - Zeta vs. Malinao

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-220)

Allegations Presented in the Complaint

Four administrative charges were lodged against respondent: (1) illegal appearance in municipal courts acting as counsel despite not being a member of the bar, allegedly collecting fees and competing with attorneys; (2) grave misconduct in office by instigating persons to commit crimes, relying on alleged influence as a court employee; (3) commission of the crime of falsification by unfaithfully filing daily time records and receiving salary for absent days; and (4) violation of Executive Orders and the Civil Service Law by engaging in private practice without permission, warranting disciplinary action up to dismissal.

Respondent’s Formal Reply

Respondent filed an indorsement denying violation of any rule or law and specifically denying breach of Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules. He asserted that his appearances were gratuitous to assist indigent defendants where counsel was absent locally and attached a pleading (a carbon-original “Motion To Withdraw Exhibits” by Atty. Simeon Quiachon) as Annex A to support his contention that his participation remedied miscarriages of justice.

Investigation, Process and Evidentiary Developments

The Department of Justice referred the complaint and respondent’s answer to Judge Zosa for investigation, report and recommendation. Despite efforts, the investigator could not subpoena the complainant, who appeared to be a fictitious person. The investigator nonetheless summoned the municipal judges before whom respondent was alleged to have appeared. Judge Duran, Judge Avestruz and Judge Reyes each certified instances in which respondent had appeared in their respective municipal courts on specific dates and in named cases. The CFI clerk’s certified daily time records for respondent were produced and showed entries of presence, leave, or undertime on dates that corresponded to the municipal court appearances alleged by the municipal judges.

Findings of Fact by the Investigator

Judge Zosa compared the municipal judges’ declarations with the respondent’s daily time records and found discrepancies: on dates when respondent’s time record reflected presence (or partial presence), testimony showed respondent appearing before municipal courts. Specific dates with mismatches included December 15, 1962; February 18, 1963; and June 17, 1970, among others. The investigator concluded that respondent had falsified his daily time records to conceal absences and had appeared as counsel in municipal courts without authority, in violation of civil service rules. For the falsification charge the investigator recommended stern warning and severe reprimand; for violation of Section 12, Rule XVIII (engaging in private practice without permission) the investigator found a violation.

Assessment of Evidence and Credibility

The Supreme Court reviewed the record and concluded that the investigator’s findings of fact were amply supported by documentary evidence (public records/time records) and contemporaneous declarations by the municipal judges. The Court treated the municipal judges’ certifications and the certified time records as persuasive evidence showing that respondent was absent from his office while appearing before municipal courts and that his time records did not accurately reflect his actual presence in the office.

Legal Conclusions: Unauthorized Practice, Falsification, and Civil Service Violations

The Court concluded (1) respondent engaged in unauthorized practice of law by appearing as counsel in municipal courts while not a member of the bar; (2) respondent falsified his official daily time records by recording presence on dates when he was before municipal courts; and (3) respondent violated civil service rules—specifically the prohibition against engaging in private practice without prior permission from superiors (Section 12, Rule XVIII, RA 2260, as amended, and relevant Executive Orders). The Court rejected respondent’s defense that his services were gratuitous for indigent defendants, observing that the frequency of appearances indicated a regular practice and that unauthorized appearances plus falsification of time records could not be excused by alleged gratuity or local need.

Penalty Imposed and Rationale

On the ground that the offenses committed were grave, the Court held the recommended reprimand inadequate and imposed separation from the service. The specific s

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-220)

Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 176 Phil. 619, decided En Banc, Administrative Matter No. P-220, December 20, 1978.
The matter is an administrative complaint originally referred by the Department of Justice to the District Judge, Court of First Instance, Catbalogan, Western Samar, for investigation, report and recommendation.
After investigation and recommendation by Judge Segundo Zosa, the case was brought before the Court en banc for final disposition.

Parties

Complainant: Julio Zeta (described in the record as the complainant who filed the letter-complaint).
Respondent: Felicisimo Malinao, court interpreter of the Court of First Instance of Catbalogan, Samar.
Other persons referenced: Judges Restituto Duran (Sta. Rita), Juanito Reyes (Zumarraga), Miguel Avestruz (Daram); Atty. Simeon Quiachon (attorney of record in a municipal case whose pleading was attached by respondent).

Nature and Source of Complaint

The complaint is an administrative charge alleging multiple violations by respondent in his capacity as a court employee.
The Department of Justice, which had jurisdiction at the time, referred the complaint for local investigation and report.

Specific Charges Alleged in the Complaint

Charge 1 — Illegal Appearance in Court:
- Allegation that respondent appeared in municipal courts (Catbalogan municipal court and also in Daram, Zumarraga, Talalora and Sta. Rita) acting as counsel for parties although he was not an attorney.
- Allegation that respondent collected fees from clients, made a livelihood from these appearances, competed with attorneys, and did not remit any payments or obtain authorization.
- Request that such conduct be stopped in the interest of good government and that records of the municipal courts could verify these acts.
Charge 2 — Grave Misconduct in Office:
- Allegation that, being employed by the Court of First Instance, respondent instigated persons (particularly in his barrio) to seize land, rob or coerce.
- Allegation that respondent told these persons not to be afraid because he was a court employee and had influence over judges, thereby encouraging crimes by persons who believed him.
- Charge framed as contrary to good order and peace and as an abuse of supposed influence to urge criminal acts.
Charge 3 — Crime of Falsification:
- Allegation that respondent unfaithfully filed his time records in the Court of First Instance, claiming presence on days when he was absent and practicing in municipal courts, thereby receiving salary for absent days.
- Suggestion that he might attempt to justify by submitting applications for leave, but the complaint asserted the commission of a crime nonetheless.
Charge 4 — Violation of Executive Order and Civil Service Law:
- Allegation that civil service employees are prohibited from engaging in private practice, profession or business without departmental permission.
- Allegation that respondent had not secured such permission and thus violated the Executive Order and the Civil Service Law (explicitly invoking Section 12, Rule XVIII, Republic Act 2260, as amended).
- Request for investigation by the Commissioner of Civil Service and imposition of corresponding penalty, possibly dismissal.

Respondent’s Initial Reply / Indorsement

Respondent filed a 3rd indorsement replying to the indorsements and the complaint.
Key points in respondent’s reply:
- Noted that the alleged letter-complaint of Julio Zeta was not enclosed in the first indorsement; that absence was recorded by the Clerk of Court.
- Without waiving any rights and out of respect and courtesy, stated he had not violated any rule or law, including Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules.
- Claimed his participation as counsel in the referenced municipal cases was gratuitous, provided because defendants were poor and no attorney was available locally, and that his assistance prevented miscarriage of justice by the presiding municipal judge (now resigned).
- Attached a carbon-original pleading submitted by Atty. Simeon Quiachon (Attorney of record for defendants in Civil Case No. 24, "Jose Kiskisan versus Fidel Pacate, et al.", Forcible Entry, Municipal Court of Talalora) as Annex "A" — a Motion To Withdraw Exhibits — as pa