Office Of The Court Administrator v. Mabelin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Edgardo A. Mabelin, Legal Researcher II of RTC, Branch 14, Ligao, Albay, was charged with Dishonesty and Incompetence in the performance of duty. The case stemmed from the disappearance of a firearm exhibit (COVINA model, Cal. 22, Serial No. F00797) from Criminal Case No. 2781, where the accused was acquitted on February 6, 1992. The firearm was entrusted to respondent's custody on September 19, 1991, when he was Acting Clerk of Court. On March 19, 1997, the Presiding Judge inquired about the firearm's whereabouts, finding it neither with the court nor the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit. Respondent claimed he transferred custody to Judge Romulo SG Villanueva, then Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 14. Judge Villanueva, however, claimed he bought the firearm from respondent for P4,500.00, believing it was a loose firearm owned by respondent, and later transferred it to a friend. The annotation on the decision regarding the transfer to Judge Villanueva was undated and unsigned. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed an investigation. The investigating consultant, Justice Narciso T. Atienza, recommended that respondent be charged with Dishonesty and that Atty. Jesus Orlando M. Quiñones file a criminal complaint for Malversation of Government Property. The Supreme Court treated the case as an Administrative Complaint for "Dishonesty and Incompetence in the Performance of Duty." The criminal aspect was referred to the Ombudsman but was closed and terminated due to the absence of a vital witness. The case was referred to the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation. Investigating Justice Eduardo P. Cruz found respondent guilty as charged and recommended dismissal from the service. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings. The Petition: The administrative complaint against Edgardo A. Mabelin for Dishonesty and Incompetence in the performance of duty.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Edgardo A. Mabelin is guilty of dishonesty in relation to the missing firearm exhibit. Whether respondent Edgardo A. Mabelin is guilty of incompetence in the performance of duty in relation to the missing firearm exhibit.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Edgardo A. Mabelin guilty of Incompetence in the Performance of Duty and suspended him from the service for six (6) months without pay. He was found not guilty of dishonesty.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dishonesty: The Court expressed doubts regarding the credibility of Judge Villanueva's account of purchasing the firearm. The Court found it incredulous that a judge with prior experience as a prosecutor would readily believe respondent's claims about owning an unlicensed firearm and would purchase it without proper scrutiny or documentation. The Court also considered respondent's claim that Judge Villanueva verbally requested the firearm's custody, which, if true, would be more in accordance with human experience given the judge's ascendancy over the respondent. Furthermore, the Court noted that respondent's claim of embarrassment for not obtaining a written acknowledgment of the turnover was plausible. The Court also gave weight to the testimony of a utility worker, Froilan R. Riñon, who corroborated respondent's version that Judge Villanueva had requested the firearm exhibit and stated he would handle its turnover to the proper authorities. Due to these doubts, the Court ruled that it could not hold respondent guilty of dishonesty. On the issue of incompetence in the performance of duty: The Court found respondent guilty of incompetence. As Acting Branch Clerk of Court, it was respondent's duty to keep the firearm exhibit in his custody and safekeeping or to transfer it to the proper authorities, as mandated by the Manual for Clerks of Court. The dispositive portion of the criminal case explicitly stated that the firearm was "ordered forfeited in favor of the government, the same to be disposed of in accordance with existing laws." Respondent's failure to produce the firearm upon inquiry from Judge Sañez constituted prima facie evidence that he had appropriated the missing firearm to his personal use. His excuse that there was no order from the trial court for the transfer to the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit (FEU) did not lie, as the forfeiture order was clear. Even if he acceded to Judge Villanueva's verbal request, he should have made a timely written memorandum of such turnover on the records of the criminal case or in the list of exhibits in his custody. The undated and unsigned annotation on the decision was deemed inadmissible as self-serving and not made contemporaneously with the event. Therefore, his failure to properly safeguard and account for the government property constituted incompetence in the performance of his official duties.
Main Doctrine
While the respondent was not found guilty of dishonesty for the sale of a firearm exhibit, he was found guilty of incompetence in the performance of duty for failing to properly safeguard and account for the said exhibit, leading to its loss and potential malversation. The penalty imposed was suspension from the service.