Palero-Tan vs. Urdaneta, JR
Palero-Tan vs. Urdaneta, JR
Judge Fulache
SUPREME COURT advised her to invite Nable and Milagros to his
Manila chambers so he could confirm the information.
EN BANC
Milagros admitted to Judge Fulache that she and
A.M. No. P-07-2399, June 18, 2008 respondent had a fight because she found a ring and
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2390-P) bracelet inside respondent’s coin purse which she
EDNA PALERO-TAN, complainant, believed he would give to his mistress. Complainant was
vs. certain that the jewels Milagros saw in respondent’s
CIRIACO I. URDANETA, JR., UTILITY WORKER I, RTC, purse were hers based on Milagros’s description of the
BRANCH 14, BAYBAY, LEYTE, respondent. said ring and bracelet. In a separate meeting with Judge
Fulache, respondent confessed that he found
RESOLUTION complainant’s jewels in the court’s premises, but he
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: could no longer return them because he already threw
In the instant administrative complaint,1 Edna Palero- them away.
Tan (complainant), Court Stenographer III of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Baybay, Leyte, In his Comment2 dated 1 April 2006, respondent denied
charged Ciriaco I. Urdaneta, Jr. (respondent), Utility that he stole complainant’s jewelry. He claimed,
Worker I of the same court, with Conduct Unbecoming instead, that in the afternoon of 29 June 2005, a Friday,
a Court Personnel, for stealing her ring and bracelet. he found a small plastic sachet containing a ring and a
bracelet under his table, at the side nearest the
Complainant claimed that it has been her practice to adjacent table of the complainant, and thinking that the
keep her and her sister’s pieces of jewelry in the locked jewelry belonged to one of the litigants who
drawer of her table at her RTC office because she fears approached him that morning, he took them for
that they might be lost at the boarding house she is safekeeping with the intention of returning them to
renting. However, on 8 July 2005, she discovered that whoever was the owner. He thought that the ring and
her ring and bracelet worth fifteen thousand pesos bracelet were "fancy" jewelry as they were merely
(P15,000.00) were missing. Complainant remembered placed in an ordinary plastic sachet. When nobody
that on 18 June 2005, a Saturday, her younger sister claimed the jewelry, he placed them inside his coin
went to the RTC to ask for her necklace. Complainant purse and took them home. However, his wife, on 30
took out from her table drawer a transparent plastic June 2005, found them and accused him of buying the
sachet which contained her ring and bracelet, and her pieces of jewelry for his mistress, and to stop his wife’s
sister’s necklace, and after handing over to her sister nagging, he threw the pieces of jewelry at a grassy lot
the necklace, she returned the plastic sachet, still beside their house.
containing the bracelet and ring, to her table drawer.
She maintained that the only person who was present When he was summoned by Judge Fulache and was
and saw her take out the jewelry from her table drawer ordered to return the jewels, he and his son searched
was respondent, whose table is adjacent to hers. for the same but they failed to find them. Respondent
begs for leniency from this Court as he insists that he
According to complainant, when she found out that her had no intention of appropriating the jewelry for
ring and bracelet were missing, she informed her himself, and presents for consideration of this Court
officemates about it, but nobody claimed to have seen that he is already sixty-one (61) years old and has been
the missing jewelry. On 28 July 2005, an officemate, in the government service for twenty-seven (27) years.
Anecito D. Altone (Altone), confided to her that he
heard from his landlady, Anastacia R. Nable (Nable), In a Resolution3 dated 20 September 2006, the Court
that respondent and his wife, Milagros, had a quarrel referred the matter to Judge Francisco C. Gedorio, Jr.,
because the latter discovered a ring and a bracelet in then Executive Judge, RTC, Ormoc City, for
respondent’s coin purse. Milagros suspected that investigation, report and recommendation, who in turn,
respondent bought the jewelry for his mistress. directed4 Atty. Erwin James B. Fabriga (Atty. Fabriaga),
Complainant approached the RTC presiding judge, Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 12, Ormoc City, to conduct
Judge Absalon U. Fulache (Judge Fulache), and relayed the investigation.
1
On 2 March 2007, Judge Apolinario M. Buaya, Acting willing to submit the matter for resolution based on the
Executive Judge, RTC, Ormoc City, submitted to the pleadings filed.
Court Atty. Fabriga’s investigation report and
recommendation dated 15 November 2006. Atty. On 12 December 2007, respondent submitted his
Fabriga found respondent liable for Conduct Manifestation8 stating that he was submitting the case
Unbecoming a Court Personnel. According to Atty. for resolution based on the pleadings filed. Complainant
Fabriga, respondent’s wife Milagros testified during the filed a similar Manifestation9 on 8 January 2008.
investigation that she indeed saw a ring and a bracelet
in her husband’s purse which caused their quarrel. Resultantly, the case was submitted for decision based
on the pleadings filed.
Atty. Fabriga found respondent’s actions inconsistent
with his claim that he had no intention to take the After a careful study, and with due regard for the facts
jewelry for his personal gain. For reasons only known to of the case and the pleadings submitted by the parties,
him, respondent never bothered to inform his the Court agrees in the conclusion reached by the
officemates about the jewelry placed in a plastic sachet Investigating Attorney. Despite all the opportunities
that he allegedly found under his table "at the side accorded to respondent to present substantial defense
nearest to the adjacent table of the complainant." It to refute the charges against him, he failed to do so.
was only on 2 or 3 August 2005, or more than a month Respondent even admitted finding the small plastic
after respondent found the jewelry, when he sachet containing complainant’s ring and bracelet on 29
acknowledged before Judge Fulache that he possessed June 2005, and keeping the jewelry in his possession
the jewelry. Even when the complainant was until he purportedly threw them away. Respondent
announcing to the rest of the office staff the loss of her testified thus:
jewelry, respondent pretended to hear nothing. Were it
not for the scandal brought about by his wife’s A: x x x My specific duty there in Court as Aide or
discovery of the missing jewelry, respondent would not Utility was to clean the office at 4:00 o’clock. By 4:00
have admitted to Judge Fulache that he had found the o’clock in the afternoon, nobody was around anymore.
same. According to Atty. Fabriga, all of respondent’s So, I emptied the trash cans and while doing so, I
acts indicate that he had no intention to return the noticed something that is placed in a plastic. I thought it
pieces of jewelry to complainant. was owned by my client who might have dropped it
because there are clients in the morning of that day.
On 4 June 2007, we noted the Report and Before throwing that plastic sachet to the thrash can, I
Recommendation of Atty. Fabriga and referred the case placed that plastic sachet on top of my table and waited
to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), for for somebody to claim it.
evaluation, report and recommendation within sixty
(60) days from notice.5 Q: What time did you notice that there was plastic
On 26 September 2007, the OCA submitted its sachet containing…?
report,6 with the following recommendation – A: 4:00 o’clock, sir.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Office respectfully Q: What did you do?
recommends to the Honorable Court that: A: I placed it on my table, sir.
1. This matter be FORMALLY DOCKETED as an Q: You placed it [on] your table?
administrative complaint against Ciriaco I. Urdaneta, Jr., A: Yes, on top of my table and I waited for anybody to
Utility Worker I, RTC, Branch 14, Baybay, Leyte; claim it.
2. Ciriaco I. Urdaneta, Jr., be FINED in the amount of Q: Who is around?
Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) to be deducted A: There was only one stenographer who was left in
from his retirement benefits; and the office, Emma Andres.
3. The Financial Management Office, OCA be DIRECTED xxxx
to release the remaining amount of the retirement A: Yes, sir, that Friday at 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon.
benefits to Ciriaco I. Urdaneta, Jr. By 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon I placed it inside my
On 12 November 2007, the Court required7 the parties coin purse after I punched out my Time Card.
to manifest within 10 days from notice if they were Q: After that, you left the office. What did you do?
A: I went home, sir.
2
Q: You admit now that you brought along with you respondent’s bare denial of any personal interest in the
that plastic sachet containing that pieces of jewelries? jewelry cannot be given credence.
A: Yes, sir. Since nobody claimed it, I placed it inside
my coin purse. It is settled that denial is inherently a weak defense. To
Q: When did you see that plastic sachet? You said a be believed, it must be buttressed by a strong evidence
while a go you saw a plastic sachet on the floor while of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-
you were cleaning? serving and is with nil evidentiary value. Like the
A: Yes, sir. defense of alibi, a denial crumbles in the light of positive
Q. When did you see that plastic sachet? declarations.11
A: June 29, 2005.
Q: It was Friday? Worth stressing is the well-entrenched principle that in
A: Yes, sir. administrative proceedings, such as the instant case,
Q: And then you went home? the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is
A: Yes, sir. only substantial evidence. Substantial evidence has
Q: And then the following morning, what did you do? been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable
A: I did nothing. mind might accept as adequate to support a
Q: Did you report for work on Monday? conclusion.12
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you ever tell you [r] co-employees about what Although there is no direct evidence that would show
you found those pieces of jewelries? that respondent stole complainant’s ring and bracelet,
A: No, sir. nonetheless, respondent is not immaculately innocent
xxxx as regards the loss of the same. Antone, an officemate
A: x x x However, I told Judge Fulache in reply that the of both respondent and complainant, testified that he
items are gone because I have thrown them away. found out from his landlady that respondent and his
Q: So, you admit before this hearing officer under wife fought over a ring and a bracelet, which Antone
oath that you had a quarrel with your wife or your wife suspected, belonged to complainant. Pertinent portions
nagged you about the jewelries? of Antone’s testimony are reproduced below:
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Because your wife suspected you of buying those MR. ANTONE:
jewelries as a gift to your girlfriend? Yes, sir. I am staying with Mrs. Anastacia Nable, while I
A: Yes, sir. That was her suspicion. was having lunch on July 27, 2005, Mrs. Nable was
Q: So, you admit that you had a quarrel with your telling me that Mila [respondent’s wife] and Junior
wife? [respondent] were quarreling because this Mila saw
A: Yes, sir. from the wallet of Junior a ring and a bracelet. Mrs.
Q: First, you admit that you had the jewelries in your Nable and Mila Urdaneta [respondent’s wife] are sisters
possession? in a Catholic Community and they used to visit each
A: Yes, sir. other in their respective homes.
Q: Second, you admit that your wife quarreled with
you because of those pieces of jewelries because she ATTY. FABRIGA:
suspected you of having another girlfriend? Q: You said in your affidavit that you inquired from
A: Yes, sir. this Anstacia Nable if Ciriaco Urdaneta Jr. [respondent]
Q: With that, you still did not announce to your co- and his wife were still quarreling. Why? Do you know
employees about the loss of jewelries? that they are always quarreling?
A: No, sir, because nobody is complaining and besides A: Yes, sir.
I have already thrown them away.10 (Emphasis Q: Why? Do you know that they are always
supplied.) quarreling?
Given respondent’s afore-quoted admission to having A: Yes, sir.
found the jewelry and keeping it in his possession Q: Why do you know that they are always quarreling?
without informing his officemates about the same, plus A: Because Mrs. Nable told me that the reason for
the positive evidence submitted by complainant, their quarrel is about that ring and bracelet.
3
Q: But when you asked this Anastacia Nable that
question, you already have in your mind or you already When a person who finds a thing that has been lost or
suspected Ciriaco Urdaneta, Jr. [respondent] as being mislaid by the owner takes the thing into his hands, he
the one who took over the jewelries? acquires physical custody only and does not become
A: Yes, sir, because I heard from Edna [complainant] vested with legal possession. In assuming such custody,
about her lost jewelries last June 2005, so, it occurred the finder is charged with the obligation of restoring the
to my mind that it is really true that the ring and the thing to its owner. It is thus respondent’s duty to report
bracelet were with Junior.13 to his superior or his officemates that he found
something. The Civil Code, in Article 719, explicitly
Respondent and his wife Mila confirmed that they requires the finder of a lost property to report it to the
indeed had a quarrel over a ring and a bracelet which proper authorities, thus:
respondent found in his RTC office. These declarations
constitute substantial evidence required in Article 719. Whoever finds a movable, which is not
administrative proceedings. The Court finds its mind at treasure, must return it to its previous possessor. If the
ease that the collective and combined weight of the latter is unknown, the finder shall immediately deposit
unbroken chain of hard and solid facts, indubitably it with the mayor of the city or municipality where the
established by trustworthy and reliable evidence finding has taken place.
offered by the complainant, unerringly and inevitably
points to but one natural and rational conclusion: that The finding shall be publicly announced by the mayor
the respondent found complainant’s jewels and, for two consecutive weeks in the way he deems best.
dishonestly and in bad faith, kept them for himself. If the movables cannot be kept without deterioration,
or without the expenses which considerably diminish its
Respondent claimed that he found the jewelry on 29 value, it shall be sold at public auction eight days after
June 2005 under his table, at the side nearest the publication.
complainant’s table. On 30 June 2005, respondent and
his wife had a quarrel about the said pieces of Six months from the publication having elapsed without
jewelry.14 On 8 July 2005, complainant was already the owner having appeared, the thing found, or its
looking for her ring and bracelet, and was asking value, shall be awarded to the finder. The finder and the
everyone at their office if they had found the said owner shall be obliged, as the case may be, to
jewelry; and yet, respondent did not speak out even reimburse the expenses.
though he already found a ring and a bracelet in their
office. Contrary to respondent’s claim, this Court is convinced
that respondent had the intention to appropriate the
It was only on 2 August 2005, when RTC Presiding Judge jewelry to himself had these not been discovered by his
Fulache confronted him with the fact that his wife had wife. His claim that the ring and bracelet were
already disclosed that she found a ring and a bracelet worthless "fancy" jewelry is immaterial because the
inside his coin purse that respondent admitted finding basis for his liability is his act of taking something which
the jewelry. His indifferent attitude and failure to does not belong to him.
inform his officemates and his wife at the soonest time
that he found the jewelry is not only improper, but By admittedly finding complainant’s ring and bracelet
highly suspicious. His allegation that he had no without returning them to the rightful owner,
opportunity to inform complainant and their respondent blatantly degraded the judiciary and
officemates about the jewels since he had already diminished the respect and regard of the people for the
thrown them away after a quarrel with his wife over the court and its personnel. Every employee of the judiciary
same, is lame and hardly persuasive. It is equally should be an example of integrity, morality and
suspicious, and not in accord with ordinary human honesty. Like any other public servant, respondent must
experience, for respondent to outrightly conclude that exhibit the highest sense of trustworthiness and
the jewels were owned by a litigant who had a matter rectitude not only in the performance of his official
pending before the RTC; and not by one of his duties but also in his personal and private dealings with
officemates, most especially complainant, who was other people, to preserve the court’s good name and
seated next to him. standing as a true temple of justice. It cannot be
4
overstressed that the image of a court of justice is accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification
mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the from re-employment in government service.20
personnel who work there, from the judge to the lowest In Court Administrator v. Sevillo,21 the Court held that
employee. the act of stealing mail matter committed by
respondent, a process server in the 16th MCTC, Jordan-
The Court has emphasized, time and again, that the Buenavista-Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, constituted
conduct of everyone connected with an office charged "grave dishonesty and grave misconduct or conduct
with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding prejudicial to the best interest of the service." The
judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with Court, in said case, ordered the dismissal of Sevillo.
the heavy burden of responsibility. Every employee of
the judiciary should be an example of integrity, Hence, for failure to live up to the high ethical standards
uprightness and honesty. Even a court janitor is as duty- expected of court employees, respondent should
bound to serve with the highest degree of responsibility likewise be dismissed.
as all other public officers.
However, it is an undeniable fact that respondent has
Those who work in the judiciary must adhere to high rendered some years of commendable service in the
ethical standards to preserve the court’s good name judiciary. Respondent has been with the judiciary for
and standing. They should be examples of twenty-three (23) years and this is the only
responsibility, competence and efficiency, and they administrative case filed against him. Records also show
must discharge their duties with due care and utmost that respondent had availed himself of optional
diligence since they are officers of the court and agents retirement which became effective on 30 November
of the law. Indeed, any conduct, act or omission on the 2006, and his retirement benefits were withheld
part of those who would violate the norm of public pending the outcome of the instant administrative
accountability and diminish or even just tend to complaint. Considering the foregoing and for
diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary shall not humanitarian reasons, the Court finds a fine of thirty
be countenanced.15 The conduct required of court thousand pesos (P30,000.00) to be an appropriate
personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest penalty for respondent, to be deducted from his
clerk, must always be beyond reproach and retirement benefits.
circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. As
forerunners in the administration of justice, they ought WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent Ciriaco I.
to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and Urdaneta, Jr., GUILTY of Grave Misconduct, and hereby
integrity, considering that their positions primarily imposes on said respondent a fine of thirty thousand
involve service to the public.16 pesos (P30,000.00), to be deducted from his retirement
benefits. The Financial Management Office of the Office
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and of the Court Administrator is directed to release the
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of remaining amount of the retirement benefits to
duty, an unlawful behavior willful in character, an respondent.
improper or wrong behavior,17 while "gross" has been SO ORDERED.
defined as "out of all measure; beyond allowance;
flagrant; shameful; such conduct as is not to be MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
excused."18 Gross misconduct has been defined as the Associate Justice
transgression of some established or definite rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross
negligence.19