A.M. No. P-25 November 28, 1975
Murillo O. Omadto, complainant, vs. Francisco G. Evangelista, Special Deputy Clerk of Court of First Instance, Pasig, Rizal, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Murillo Omadto denounced respondent Francisco Evangelista, a Special Deputy Clerk of Court, for issuing a Certificate of Court Clearance on July 7, 1965, to a Chinese citizen named See Tun. This certification stated there was no criminal case filed against said See Tun, enabling him to depart for Hongkong. The complainant alleged this See Tun was the same person convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in Criminal Case No. 8749. In his defense, respondent claimed the clearance was issued to a different See Tun, citing discrepancies in aliases and addresses, and asserted he required affidavits and photographs to verify the applicant’s identity.
The investigation faced prolonged delays due to postponements and a parallel criminal probe. A resolution by then Fiscal Benjamin Aquino recommended dropping the criminal charge, citing insufficient evidence and a separate NBI report suggesting case closure. However, the administrative investigation proceeded, with immigration officials testifying that the See Tun who received the clearance was the same individual blacklisted and bearing the Alien Certificate of Registration number linked to the convicted person.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Francisco Evangelista is administratively liable for misconduct in office for issuing the court clearance.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct and dishonesty warranting dismissal. The Court found his defense unpersuasive. The evidence established that the See Tun who received the clearance was indeed the convicted individual, as confirmed by Bureau of Immigration records linking the ACR number and address. Respondent’s act of issuing the clearance despite these indicators constituted a willful and malicious disregard of proper procedure, facilitating a convicted criminal’s evasion of service of sentence.
This act amounts to dishonesty and falsification of a public document under the Revised Penal Code. The Court emphasized that a public office is a public trust, requiring the highest degree of integrity. Respondent’s action, considered alongside his record of prior administrative cases for gross negligence, demonstrates habituality that seriously impairs the administration of justice. His conduct shows unfitness for public service. The earlier fiscal resolution recommending dismissal of the criminal case was accorded no weight, especially given the fiscal’s subsequent departure from government service. Thus, dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits is imposed.