G.R. No.: A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-127-CA-J
Date: January 11, 2011

Case Parties/Title: RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ARIEL SAMSON C. CAYETUNA, ET AL., ALL EMPLOYEES OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P. ELBINIAS against ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MICHAEL P. ELBINIAS, CA – Mindanao Station

FACTS

Complainants were confidential employees of Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias at the Court of Appeals (CA) – Mindanao Station. They filed an unverified letter-complaint dated April 30, 2008, charging Justice Elbinias with Gross Inefficiency; Bribe Solicitation; Drinking Liquor in Office Premises; Personal Use of Government Property and Resources; Falsification of a Favored Employee’s Daily Time Record; Disrespect Towards fellow Justices; Oppression through Intemperate, Oppressive and Threatening Language; and Grave Abuse of Authority. They prayed for his dismissal, preventive suspension, security from retaliation, and acceptance of their enclosed resignation letters without his prior approval.
The case originated from a litigant’s letter-complaint to the Presidential Action Center regarding a pending case. This was referred to the CA. On April 21, 2008, Justice Elbinias received the indorsement and assigned Atty. Cayetuna to draft a reply. Justice Elbinias asked Atty. Cayetuna to sign the reply, which Atty. Cayetuna refused to do in a written explanation dated April 24, 2008, citing his conscience and potential legal liability. Justice Elbinias terminated Atty. Cayetuna’s employment that same day. Consequently, Atty. Cayetuna did not receive his salary for the second half of April 2008, his RATA, and was informed he would not receive his EEA and midyear bonus. The other complainants filed the administrative complaint in solidarity.
The complainants’ resignations were approved by the Court on May 7-9, 2008. In a subsequent letter-complaint dated June 18, 2008, they alleged Justice Elbinias antedated the termination of Atty. Jamero (whose resignation was initially omitted), refused to sign their clearances, and possibly gave a negative list of their names to a newly appointed Justice.
In his Comment, Justice Elbinias denied the charges, attributing his threats to dismiss employees to their poor performance and asserting the complaint was a preemptive move. He stated he lost confidence in Atty. Cayetuna after the latter’s “insincere” objection to signing the reply, justifying the termination. In a Supplemental Comment, he explained the delay in signing clearances was due to the need for an inventory of records left in disarray and accused complainants of collective theft of documents.
The Court received a letter of support for Justice Elbinias from his current employees and commendations from local organizations. After both parties manifested to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings, the case was deemed submitted.

ISSUE

Whether Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias is administratively liable for the charges against him.

RULING

The Court found Justice Elbinias GUILTY of Oppression and Grave Abuse of Authority and imposed a FINE of FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P40,000.00).
The Court dismissed most of the charges for lack of sufficient evidence. The allegations of bribe solicitation, drinking liquor in office, personal use of government property, and disrespect towards fellow justices were not substantiated. The charge of gross inefficiency was negated by his timely disposition of cases. The charge of falsification of a Daily Time Record was unproven.
However, the Court found Justice Elbinias liable for Oppression and Grave Abuse of Authority based on the incident involving Atty. Cayetuna. The act of requiring a subordinate to sign a letter drafted for the Justice’s benefit, which the subordinate in good faith believed could subject him to liability, and then peremptorily terminating him for refusing, constitutes oppression. It is a tyrannical exercise of power that burdens subordinates unjustly. The termination was an abrupt, retaliatory act for Atty. Cayetuna’s principled stand. While a Justice has discretion in hiring and firing confidential employees, this power must be exercised judiciously and not oppressively. His subsequent acts of withholding salaries/benefits, antedating a termination, and delaying the signing of clearances, as alleged, further demonstrated a pattern of harassment and abuse of authority.
The Court considered the penalty of dismissal as too severe given the circumstances and the fact that only one charge was proven. The fine was deemed appropriate. The Court also noted that the complainants’ unverified complaints were properly treated as anonymous complaints, but the material allegations related to the core incident were sufficiently established.