SC rules recantation DOES NOT AUTO-EXCLUDE original testimony
Second. The respondent failed to file a motion for the reopening of the investigation to enable him to present Olavere and Momma to testify on their affidavits to prevent the Investigating Justice and the Court Administrator, which were not even furnished with copies of said affidavits, from conducting examination of Olavere and Momma on their affidavits.
Third. Olavere had personal knowledge of the facts contained in his sworn statement, supplemental sworn statement and his testimony and, hence, the said statement and testimony are not hearsay. Olavere dealt personally with the respondent, gave him the total amount of P250,000 after receiving the unsigned and signed orders from the respondent.
Fourth. Olavere and Momma did not explain their affidavits why it took them until December 11, 2002 or after the lapse of more than a year from the entrapment of the respondent on August 31, 2001 to execute the same. It is incredible that it took Olavere more than one year to realize that the facts contained in his sworn statement and as testified to by him were hearsay and of his lack of knowledge of procedure. Being a mere secretary and a functionary of Momma, Olavere has not explained how he came to the conclusion that his sworn statement and testimony are hearsay.
Fifth. The desistance of witnesses does not automatically result in the dismissal of an administrative case. This Court, in fact, looks with disfavor at affidavits of desistance filed by complainants, especially if done as an afterthought. Contrary to the submission of the respondent, the withdrawal of the complaint on the recantation of Olavere does not have the legal effect of exonerating him from any administrative disciplinary actions for acts/omissions meriting disciplinary sanctions by the respondent. It does not operate to divest this Court of jurisdiction to determine the truth behind the matter stated in the complaint. The Courts disciplinary authority cannot be dependent on or frustrated by private arrangements between parties. An administrative complaint against an official or employee of the judiciary cannot simply be withdrawn by a complainant who suddenly claims a change of mind.[79]
On the last issue, we agree with the Investigating Justice that the respondent, based on the substantial evidence on record, is guilty of grave and serious misconduct: for extorting P50,000 from Momma through Olavere for the unsigned order, and another P200,000 for the order duly signed by Judge Maceda. Such abominable acts of the respondent warrant his dismissal from the service and the imposition of accessory penalties therefor.[80]
The Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[81]
Time and again this Court has stressed that those involved in the administration of justice must conduct themselves in a manner that is beyond reproach since their office is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility.[82] Public office is a public trust. No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its occupant than does the judicial office. Clerks of court, in particular, being the chief administrative officers of their respective courts, must be individuals of competence, honesty and probity, charged as they are with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings.[83] As essential and ranking officers of our judicial system, they perform delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice.[84] Clerks of court serve as an exemplar for other court employees, whose duties and responsibilities must be strictly performed. They play a key role in the complement of the court and cannot be permitted to slacken on the job under one pretext or another.[85]
Furthermore, it must be stressed that a member of the Bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. The Code of Professional Responsibility was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all lawyers, including those in government service.[86] Lawyers in government are public servants who owe utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public.[87]
Under A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC[88] Re: Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative Cases Against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and Special Courts; and Court Officials Who are Lawyers as Disciplinary Proceedings Against Them Both as Such Officials and as Members of the Philippine Bar,[89] which took effect on October 1, 2002, the respondent would have been required to comment on the complaint and to show cause why he should not also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinarily sanctioned as a member of the bar. However, the complaint was filed before this Court on September 21, 2001, long before the said resolution took effect. Thus, it cannot be applied in the instant case.90
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Edgar Allan C. Morante, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Las Pias City, Branch 275, having been found GUILTY of grave and serious misconduct, is DISMISSED from the service effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to his reemployment in any branch or instrumentality in the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED. (A.M. No. P-02-1555. April 16, 2004)
