Anonymous Letter Complaint against Atty.
Miguel Morales
November 19, 2008 | Austria-Martinez, J. | Due process
PETITIONER: Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Clerk of Court Atty.
Henry P. Favorito of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Clerk of Court Atty.
Miguel Morales of Branch 17, Clerk of Court Amie Grace Arreola of Branch 4,
Administrative Officer III William Calda of the Office of the Clerk of Court and
stenographer Isabel Siwa of Branch 16, all of the Metropolitan Trial Court,
Manila.
SUMMARY: Anonymous complaints were lodged to the Office of the Court
Administrator following alleged misbehavior of certain employees in the legal
profession. During the investigation, no sufficient evidence was found, which
prompted the Deputy Court Administrator to conduct a spot check and seize any
evidence found.
The Court ruled that the spot check without prior consent from the Court renders
the evidence invalid as it contradicts the rights of employees to due process,
which includes being free from unauthorized seizures.
DOCTRINE: Due process – Any violation of the constitutional right to due
process renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding. However, when the act falls within the exemptions, such as
consented warrantless search, then it is considered admissible.
FACTS:
1. Two anonymous complaints were filed alleging misconduct by certain staff
of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.
2. Atty. Morales was alleged to have been focusing on handling personal cases
using his current office’s supplies. Deputy Court Administrator conducted a
spot check to verify the claims. However, the move backfired as over a
hundred employees of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila questioned
the validity of said spot check.
3. Atty. Morales and Arreola are also alleged to merely time in and out while
opting to stay out of the office’s premises during actual work hours. Atty.
Favorito is also alleged to condone such practices. Siwa is also allegedly
allowed to lend money inside court premises.
4. A manifestation was submitted by Atty. Morales claiming that Siwa is not
the only employee engaged in such business, and its legality is not explicitly
prohibited by law.
5. Office of the Court Administrator did not find any liability among the
accused.
ISSUE/s:
1. WoN evidence claimed without Court orders during the spot check would
be valid - NO
RULING:
\WHEREFORE, the Court finds Isabel Siwa, Court Stenographer of Branch 16,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, GUILTY of conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service and is FINED in the amount of P30,000.00 to be deducted from the
money value of her leave credits which was set aside per Resolution dated October
12, 2005 in A.M No. 12096-Ret. entitled Application for Retirement Benefits under
Section 13-A of R.A. No. 8291 of Ms. Isabel A. Siwa, Court Stenographer II, MeTC,
Manila, Branch 16.
Atty. Henry P. Favorito, Clerk of Court of the Office of the Clerk of Court is
REPRIMANDED for his failure to supervise the lending and rediscounting activites
of Siwa which took place in the court's premises. The extortion charges against him
are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The charges against Atty. Miguel Morales, former Branch Clerk of Court, Branch
17, are DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. Deputy Court Administrator
Reuben de la Cruz is advised to be more circumspect in the performance of his
duties.
The charges against William Calda, Administrative Officer of the Office of the Clerk
of Court, and Amie Grace Arreola, formerly Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 4 now
Clerk of Court of Branch 30, both of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, are
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to conduct an audit
investigation on Isabel Siwa's transcription of stenographic notes in view of the
finding of Judge Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta in her Investigation Report
dated September 1, 2006 in A.M. No. P-08-2519 and A.M. P-08-2520 (formerly
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2155-P and A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2156-P) that Siwa has not
submitted a complete transcription of stenographic notes in several cases assigned to
her. Said matter shall be treated as a separate case, to be given a new docket number
and assigned to a new ponente for final resolution.
RATIO:
1. The Court ruled that consent to a search is not always considered to be
present and must be voluntary to be considered as valid. To constitute a
valid consent or waiver of the constitutional guarantee against
obtrusive searches, it must be shown that: (1) the right exists; (2) that the
person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the
existence of such right; and (3) the said person had an actual intention to
relinquish the right.