Admin Case Digest

OCA vs Umblas

A.M. No. P-09-2649, August 1, 2017

Facts:

The instant administrative case arose from a Memorandum dated January 15, 2009 filed before
the complainant Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) by then Deputy Court Administrator
Reuben P. De La Cruz (DCA De La Cruz) reporting the commission of malversation thru
falsification of official documents committed by employees of the Regional Trial Court of
Ballesteros, Cagayan, Branch 33 (RTC-Cagayan Br. 33). The audit and investigation team
discovered that during respondents Umblas and Atty. Baltazar-Aquino's (respondents) respective
periods of accountability, they have committed various irregularities in the collections and
deposits of the Judiciary Development Fund, General Fund, Sheriff's General Fund, Special
Allowance for the Judiciary Fund, Fiduciary Fund, Legal Research Fund, Publication, and
Sheriffs Trust Fund. It was likewise found out that there have been cases of uncollected and/or
understated fees, tampered official receipts, and collections without issuing official receipts. 5
After collating all the relevant data, the audit and investigation team concluded that Umblas had
total initial shortages amounting to Pl,334,784.35,6 while Atty. Baltazar-Aquino's total initial
shortages amounted to ?796,685.20.

Issue:

whether or not respondents should be held administratively liable for Dishonesty, Grave
Misconduct, and Gross Neglect of Duty.

Ruling:

The Court concurs with the OCA's findings and recommendations, with modification holding
respondents also administratively liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service.

"Dishonesty is the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of

integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and
straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray."

On the other hand, "[m]isconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. To warrant
dismissal from the service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty,
momentous, and not trifling. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error
of judgment and must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the
public officer's official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional
neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office. In order to differentiate gross misconduct
from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant
disregard of established rule, must be manifest in the former."

Here, Atty. Baltazar-Aquino voluntarily and unconditionally admitted that she authored the
various acts of falsifying and tampering official receipts, resulting in cash shortages in her
accountabilities. More importantly, she expressed her willingness to return the amount
comprising such shortages, thereby impliedly admitting that she misappropriated the same for
her personal use.31 Clearly, the foregoing admissions rendered Atty. Baltazar-Aquino
administratively liable for the same. Meanwhile, while Umblas was only a Legal Researcher, it
must nevertheless be pointed out that he acted as RTC-Cagayan Br. 33 's Officer-in-Charge from
February 1997 to July 31, 2005 and was therefore an accountable disbursement officer thereof.
In fact, during this period, he incurred cash shortages, all of which were left unexplained as he
failed to file his written explanation despite his requests for numerous extensions of time to do
so. As succinctly put by the OCA, his inexplicable silence on the matter can already be viewed
as an admission of guilt on his part, warranting the imposition of administrative liabilities against
him.

Criminal Case Digest:

People vs Udtohan

G.R. No. 228887, August 02, 2017

Facts:

Sometime in April 2011, AAA went with accused-appellant, whom she called CCC, to the YYY
Camp, Sitio XXX, to buy some bananas. Accused-appellant would buy bananas everyday and
AAA helped him in selling banana cue as she was still on vacation from school. While on their
way to the YYY Camp, accused-appellant suddenly dragged AAA towards the grassy portion of
a vacant lot. Then and there, he had carnal knowledge with AAA by inserting his penis inside her
vagina. After satisfying his lust, accused-appellant pushed AAA out of the road and proceeded to
buy some bananas. He threatened AAA that should she tell anyone about the incident, he would
eject her family from his house and he would not feed them. Subsequently, accused-appellant
would sexually abuse AAA almost every day at the same place.

Later, on September 11, 2011, at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, at the house of accused-
appellant, he molested AAA by caressing and touching her vagina. AAA did not tell anyone
about accused-appellant's bestial acts against her because she was afraid that the latter would
evict them and kill her.

RTC held that accused guilty. CA confirmed RTCs decision.

Issue:

Whether or not the Accused is guilty of Qualified Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness.

Ruling:

After a judicious scrutiny of the records, the Court finds that accused-appellant is guilty of
qualified rape and acts of lasciviousness under the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) ofR.A. No.
7610.

Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age
regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation or
consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence of
free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12. 11 Moreover,
under Article 266-B of the RPC, there is qualified rape when the victim is below 18 years of age
and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

It is apparent from the testimony of AAA that she suffered sexual abuses at the hands of
accused-appellant, her own uncle. The first instance occurred in April 2011, on their way to
Camp YYY to buy bananas when accused-appellant pushed AAA to the grassy portion and raped
her. Despite her tender age and traumatizing experience, AAA was able to describe in open
court, through an anatomically correct doll, that accused-appellant used and inserted his penis in
her vagina which caused her tremendous pain and injuries. Testimonies of rape victims who are
young and of tender age are credible. The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was
abused deserves full credence.16 It is a well-settled rule that factual findings of the trial court,
especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will
not be disturbed on appeal.

On the other hand, acts of lasciviousness under the RPC has the following elements: that the
offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; that it is done by using force or
intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and that the offended party is another person of
either sex. this case, the conduct of accused-appellant in intentionally touching and caressing the
genitals of AAA constituted an act of lasciviousness. He must be punished under the prescribed
penalty of R.A. No. 7610 as AAA was below 12 years of age at the time of the incident. The
aggravating circumstance of relationship must also be taken into consideration. Accused-
appellant interposed a defense of denial by vehemently denying the accusations against him. It is
an established rule, however, tha tdenial is an inherently weak defense and constitutes self-
serving negative evidence, which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive
declaration by a credible witness.

Indeed, the positive testimony of AAA outweighs the denial proffered by accused-appellant.
Mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it can scarcely overcome the positive
declaration by the child-victim of the identity of the accused and his involvement in the crime
attributed to him.

Civil Case:

Reyes vs Doctolero

G.R. No. 185597, August 2, 2017

Facts:

The case arose from an altercation between respondent Orico Doctolero (Doctolero), a security
guard of respondent Grandeur Security and Services Corporation (Grandeur) and petitioners
John E.R. Reyes (John) and Mervin Joseph Reyes (Mervin) in the parking area of respondent
Makati Cinema Square (MCS).

Petitioners were shot by the said respondents due to the altercation happened in the parking are
of the respondent Makati Cinema Square. Petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Makati a complaint for damages against respondents Doctolero and Avila and their employer
Grandeur, charging the latter with negligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.
They likewise impleaded MCS on the ground that it was negligent in getting Grandeur's services.
In their complaint, petitioners prayed that respondents be ordered, jointly and severally, to pay
them actual, moral, and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and litigation costs.

On January 18, 1999, the RTC rendered judgment 12 against respondents Doctolero and Avila,
finding them responsible for the injuries sustained by petitioners. The RTC ordered them to
jointly and severally pay petitioners the following: P344,898.73 as actual damages; P360,000.00
as lost income; P20,000.00 as school expenses; P300,000.00 as moral damages; Pl 00,000.00 as
exemplary damages; P75,000.00 as attorney's fees; and costs of suit. The trial thereafter
continued with respect to Grandeur and MCS. However, Respondent MSC and Grandeur filed
MR which was eventually granted dismissing their liability against petitioners. CA affirmed the
said RTC order. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not Grandeur and MCS may be held vicariously liable for the damages caused by
respondents Doctolero and Avila to petitioners John and Mervin Reyes

Ruling:

As a general rule, one is only responsible for his own act or omission. This general rule is laid
down in Article 2176 of the Civil Code. The law, however, provides for exceptions when it
makes certain persons liable for the act or omission of another. One exception is an employer
who is made vicariously liable for the tort committed by his employee under paragraph 5 of
Article 2180. It must be stressed, however, that the above rule is applicable only if there is an
employer-employee relationship. 27 This employer-employee relationship cannot be presumed
but must be sufficiently proven by the plaintiff.28 The plaintiff must also show that the employee
was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tortt complained of was committed. It
is only then that the defendant, as employer, may find it necessary to interpose the defense of due
diligence in the selection and supervision of employees.
The SC finds no employer-employee relationship between MCS and respondent guards. The
guards were merely assigned by Grandeur to secure MCS' premises pursuant to their Contract of
Guard Services. Thus, MCS cannot be held vicariously liable for damages caused by these
guards' acts or omissions.

On the other hand, paragraph 5 of Article 218033 of the Civil Code may be applicable to
Grandeur, it being undisputed that respondent guards were its employees. When the employee
causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own duties, there arise the Juris
tantum presumption that the employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the
diligence of a good father of a family. The "diligence of a good father" referred to in the last
paragraph of Article 2180 means diligence in the selection and supervision of employees.

To rebut the presumption of negligence, Grandeur must prove two things: first, that it had
exercised due diligence in the selection of respondents Doctolero and Avila, and second, that
after hiring Doctolero and Avila, Grandeur had exercised due diligence in supervising them.

Here, both the R TC and the CA found that Grandeur was able to sufficiently prove, through
testimonial and documentary evidence, that it had exercised the diligence of a good father of a
family in the selection and hiring of its security guards. As testified to by its HRD head Ungui,
and corroborated by documentary evidence including clearances from various government
agencies, certificates, and favorable test results in medical and psychiatric examinations.