A.M. No. P-118 September 30, 1975
Herminigildo Cutad vs. Dionisio Abad

FACTS

Herminigildo Cutad, a self-described civic-spirited citizen, filed a letter-complaint with President Ferdinand E. Marcos charging Deputy Clerk of Court Dionisio E. Abad with three offenses: rendering service outside his official station in Marawi City without authorization, failing to account for sheriff’s collections from a prior acting capacity, and using spurious collateral to secure a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines. Respondent Abad denied all charges, submitting supporting documents. The complaint was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Eduardo C. Tutaan. During the investigation, complainant Cutad failed to appear and could not be located, leading to suspicions he was a fictitious person. Respondent, however, appeared and presented evidence.
The undisputed facts reveal that in June 1970, Judge Teodulo C. Tandayag, upon his assignment to Iligan City, brought respondent Abad along and designated him officer-in-charge of two different branches there due to personnel shortages. Respondent performed duties in Iligan City from 1970 onward, with his detail noted by the Department of Justice and his salary checks being issued there. Regarding the other charges, respondent presented certificates clearing him of money accountabilities and explained his loan was approved after the bank’s own investigation of the property’s reconstituted title, asserting he was a buyer in good faith.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Dionisio Abad is administratively liable for the charges against him.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the charges for non-accounting of collections and use of spurious collateral due to a complete lack of evidence, as the complainant failed to appear and substantiate the allegations. Respondent’s evidence of clearance and good faith was deemed sufficient for exculpation on these points.
However, the Court found respondent guilty of insubordination for rendering service outside his official station without proper authorization. The legal logic hinges on the rules governing the assignment and supervision of court personnel. While Judge Tandayag’s initial detail of respondent in 1970 might have been informally acknowledged by the Department of Justice, the subsequent transfer of administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel to the Supreme Court under Presidential Decree No. 185 and the 1973 Constitution required explicit authorization from the Chief Justice. Respondent continued to serve in Iligan City without obtaining this necessary authority from the Supreme Court after the transfer of supervisory powers. This constituted a violation of administrative rules and a defiance of proper authority.
Considering respondent’s almost twenty-seven years of otherwise unblemished government service and the circumstances, the Court imposed leniency. The penalty was a severe reprimand with a warning. The Court also ordered respondent to immediately return to his official station in Marawi City within five days and directed the withholding of his salary until he reported for duty there.