IN RE MORALES

571 SCRA 361 NOVEMBER 19, 2008

NATURE OF ACTION

Before the Court are two anonymous complaints: docketed as A.M. No. P-08-2519 charging Atty. Miguel Morales
(Atty. Morales), Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 17, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila  of misconduct; and A.M.
No. P-08-2520 charging Atty. Morales of misconduct, graft and corruption and moonlighting.

FACTS

A. A.M. No. P-08-2519

In an unsigned and undated letter which the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received on February 24, 2005,
the writers, who claim to be employees of the OCC-MeTC of Manila, allege that Atty. Morales, then detailed at the
OCC, was consuming his working hours filing and attending to personal cases, such as administrative cases against
employees in his old sala, using office supplies, equipment and utilities. The writers aver that Atty. Morales's conduct
has demoralized them and they resorted to filing an anonymous complaint in fear of retaliation from Atty. Morales.

Assistant Court Administrator (ACA) now Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Reuben P. dela Cruz, conducted a
discreet investigation on March 8, 2005 to verify the allegations of the complaint. However, since the office of Atty.
Morales was located at the innermost section of the Docket/Appeals Section of the OCC, DCA Dela Cruz failed to
extensively make an observation of the actuations of Atty. Morales.

On March 16, 2005, a spot investigation was conducted by DCA Dela Cruz together with four NBI agents, a crime
photographer and a support staff. The team was able to access the personal computer of Atty. Morales and print two
documents stored in its hard drive and Manila. Atty. Morales's computer was seized and taken to the custody of the
OCA.2 Upon Atty. Morales's motion however, the Court ordered the release of said computer with an order to the
Management Information Systems Office of the Supreme Court to first retrieve the files stored therein.

Atty. Morales filed a letter-complaint addressed to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. against DCA Dela Cruz and
his companions for alleged conspiracy and culpable violation of Secs. 1, 2 & 3 of Art. III of the Constitution relative to
the spot investigation.

In his Manifestation which the OCA received on April 27, 2005, Atty. Morales alleged that: the anonymous letter-
complaint should not have been given due course as there is no truth to the allegations therein; the OCA took almost
a year to act on the anonymous letter-complaint which did not have the proper indorsement from the Office of the
Chief Justice; even though he brought to the OCC his personal computer, such act is not prohibited; he did not use
his computer to write pleadings during office hours and neither did he use paper of the OCC; the "raid" conducted by
DCA Dela Cruz without search and seizure orders violated his right to privacy and the articles seized therewith should
be considered inadmissible.12
In a letter dated April 12, 2005, Atty. Morales applied for optional retirement  which the Court approved in its
Resolution dated October 12, 2005 subject to the withholding of his benefits pending resolution of cases against him,
the instant case included.

B. A.M. No. P-08-2520

In another unsigned letter dated April 1, 2004, the writers who claim to be employees of the OCC-MeTC, Manila,
charge Atty. Morales, Arreola, Atty. Favorito, Calda and Siwa of the following offenses:

1. Atty. Morales and Arreola, who are both detailed in the OCC, leave the office after logging-in only to return
in the afternoon, which acts are allowed by Atty. Favorito; Atty. Morales and Arreola were not given
assignments and whenever they are at the office, they do nothing but play computer games;
2. Siwa is also allowed by Atty. Favorito to lend money and rediscount checks during office hours using court
premises;
3. Many people from different offices go to the OCC because of the business of Siwa;
4. Atty. Favorito also allows two of Siwa's personal maids to use the OCC as their office in rediscounting
checks; and
5. Atty. Favorito and Calda charge P50.00 to P500.00 from sureties claiming said amounts to be processing
fees without issuing receipts therefor.

In the same spot investigation conducted by DCA De La Cruz on March 16, 2005, a partly hidden plastic box was
discovered containing the amount of P65,390.00 and six commercial checks, which Siwa voluntarily opened to the
team. These were also confiscated and turned over to the custody of the OCA.

Siwa in her Comment avers that: the anonymous letter-complaint should not have been given due course as it
contravened Sec. 46(c) of Executive Order No. 292 and the implementing rules; it was not subscribed and sworn to
by the complainant and there is no obvious truth to the allegations therein; while she admits that she is involved in
the business of rediscounting checks, such is a legitimate endeavor.

C. Report of the Investigating Judge

Insofar as Atty. Morales, Atty. Favorito, Calda and Arreola are concerned, the investigation immediately stumbled into
a dead end. No one from the OCC personnel who were interviewed would give a categorical and positive statement
affirming the charges against the said personnel. While almost all confirmed that Atty. Morales maintained his own
computer and printer at the OCC, nobody could state for certain that what he worked on were pleadings for private
cases.

While documents referring to private cases were found in the hard drive of the computer of Atty. Morales, and while
the writing style is similar to that of the Manifestation he filed in this case, still no definite conclusion could be drawn
that he has composed the said pleadings at the OCC during official working hours. A close examination of the Pre-
Trial Brief signed by Atty. Icaonapo and filed with the RTC Branch 1, Manila also revealed that the paper and the
printer used were not the same as that used in the office of Atty. Morales.
There was also no evidence to support charges of extortion against Atty. Favorito and Calda. Two bondsmen who
were randomly interviewed denied that Atty. Favorito and Calda exacted illegal sums from them. The amounts they
charged could actually refer to legal fees.

The OCA concluded that: Atty. Morales and Siwa should be found guilty of gross misconduct.

On Arreola and Calda: The OCA agrees with Judge Estoesta that the charges against them should be dismissed for
lack of concrete evidence

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the right against unreasonable searches and seizure be invoked in administrative case

RULING

1. No, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure cannot be invoked in an administrative case

Enshrined in our Constitution is the inviolable right of the people to be secure in their persons and properties against
unreasonable searches and seizures, which is provided for under Section 2, Article III thereof. The exclusionary rule
under Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution also bars the admission of evidence obtained in violation of such
right.

The fact that the present case is administrative in nature does not render the above principle inoperative. As
expounded in Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, any violation of the aforestated constitutional right renders the
evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding .

There are exceptions to this rule one of which is consented warrantless search.

DCA Dela Cruz in his report claims that that they were able to obtain the subject pleadings with the consent of Atty.
Morales. The Court finds however that such allegation on his part, even with a similar allegation from one of his staff,
is not sufficient to make the present case fall under the category of a valid warrantless search.

Consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred and must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. 49 It must be
voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal search; that is, the consent must be unequivocal, specific,
intelligently given and uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. The burden of proving, by clear and positive
testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given lies with the State.

Acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights is not to be presumed and courts indulge every
reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights.

To constitute a valid consent or waiver of the constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it must be shown
that:

a. the right exists;

b. that the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; and

c. the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.53

In this case, what is missing is a showing that Atty. Morales had an actual intention to relinquish his right. While he
may have agreed to the opening of his personal computer and the printing of files therefrom, in the presence of DCA
Dela Cruz, his staff and some NBI agents during the March 16, 2005 spot investigation, it is also of record that Atty.
Morales immediately filed an administrative case against said persons questioning the validity of the investigation,
specifically invoking his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.

(Liability of Atty. Morales)

While Atty. Morales may have fallen short of the exacting standards required of every court employee, unfortunately,
the Court cannot use the evidence obtained from his personal computer against him for it violated his constitutional
right.

And as there is no other evidence, apart from the pleadings, retrieved from the unduly confiscated personal
computer of Atty. Morales, to hold him administratively liable, the Court has no choice but to dismiss the charges
herein against him for insufficiency of evidence.

(Liability of Siwa)

The Court agrees with the OCA that Siwa should be administratively disciplined for engaging in the business of
lending and rediscounting checks.

Officials and employees of the judiciary are prohibited from engaging directly in any private business, vocation, or
profession even outside office hours to ensure that full-time officers of the court render full-time service so that there
may be no undue delay in the administration of justice and in the disposition of cases. The nature of work of court
employees requires them to serve with the highest degree of efficiency and responsibility and the entire time of
judiciary officials and employees must be devoted to government service to ensure efficient and speedy
administration of justice.

Indeed, the Court has always stressed that court employees must strictly observe official time and devote every
second moment of such time to public service. And while the compensation may be meager, that is the sacrifice
judicial employees must be willing to take.

(Liability of Atty. Favorito)

There is no evidence to show that Atty. Favorito knows or should have known that Atty. Morales had copies of
pleadings for private cases in his personal computer for which Atty. Favorito could be held liable for neglect of duty
as supervisor. As to Siwa's lending and rediscounting activities, however, the Court finds that Atty. Favorito was
remiss in addressing said matter which activity took place in the court's premises which was under his responsibility.

Clarifications, however, should be made.

Siwa never admitted that her business stretched to the premises of the OCC-MeTC but only claimed that her staff
used "corridors" which were "common or public areas" for their transactions.

Still, Atty. Favorito failed to address such matter and to prevent such activities from taking place, even if they were
conducted in the corridors, since such areas are still part of the court's premises. As Clerk of Court of the OCC, it is
Atty. Favorito's duty to plan, direct, supervise and coordinate the activities of all divisions/sections/units in the OCC.
He should therefore be reprimanded for his failure to duly supervise and prevent such activities from happening
within his area of responsibility.

(Liability of Arreaola on absence during office hours)

The Court finds no sufficient evidence to hold Arreola administratively liable.

It is well-settled that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is
substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. The complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint.
That is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, what will prevail is that respondent has regularly performed his or
her duties. Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no
leg to stand on, and charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.

Since there is no proof, apart from the allegations of the letter-complaint, to hold Atty. Favorito, Calda and Arreola
liable for the afore- stated charges against them, the Court deems it proper to dismiss said charges for lack of merit.

DISPOSITION

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.