A.M. No. 1827. April 25, 1978.
Domingo Mabutas, complainant, vs. Pilar P. Nable and Assistant City Fiscal of Manila, Rufino G. Madarang, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Domingo Mabutas, a retired court stenographer, filed an administrative complaint for harassment against Atty. Pilar P. Nable and then Assistant City Fiscal Rufino G. Madarang. Mabutas alleged that Nable maliciously charged him with falsification of a public document, specifically his daily time record for July 3, 1968, by claiming he falsely recorded being at his stenographer post in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro when he was actually at the Municipal Court of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, attending to a criminal case. Based on Nable’s affidavit, Fiscal Madarang issued a subpoena, compelling Mabutas to travel to Manila for a preliminary investigation. Mabutas contended the charge was baseless and filed in retaliation for damage suits he had previously initiated against Nable and her family.
Respondent Madarang denied acting with malice, asserting he acted in good faith and in the regular performance of duty, believing the case was triable in Manila because the falsified time record was submitted to the Department of Justice. Respondent Nable claimed she filed the charge in good faith to report an offense, abandoning it in Manila upon realizing jurisdictional issues and refiling it with the Provincial Fiscal of Oriental Mindoro.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Pilar P. Nable and Rufino G. Madarang should be held administratively liable for harassment.

RULING

The Court dismissed the administrative complaint. For Nable, the Court found no evidence of malicious falsification in her affidavit. Mabutas admitted he was not at his designated workstation on July 3, 1968, but at the Calapan Municipal Court. This admission provided a factual basis for Nable’s charge, negating the claim it was purely harassing. Her assertion that Mabutas falsified his record by claiming presence elsewhere was a matter of fact, not a demonstrable falsehood. Her subsequent jurisdictional correction further indicated an intent to pursue the case properly, not to harass.
For Fiscal Madarang, the Court ruled his actions were taken in good faith. While potentially mistaken on the jurisdictional question—since the alleged falsification by a Mindoro court stenographer implied the offense occurred in Mindoro—his belief that venue lay in Manila because the document was filed with the Department of Justice was a reasonable, if erroneous, legal interpretation. Good faith is presumed, and a mistake on a doubtful point of law does not equate to bad faith or malice. The Court cited Article 526 of the Civil Code, which holds that a mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith. Thus, no administrative sanction was warranted against either respondent.