G.R. No. P-01-1518. November 14, 2001. ANTONIO A. ARROYO, complainant, vs. SANCHO L. ALCANTARA, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Guinobatan, Albay, respondent.
FACTS:

Complainant Antonio Arroyo filed an administrative case against respondent Sancho Alcantara, Clerk of Court II, alleging oppression, misconduct, and violations of ethical and anti-graft laws. The complaint stemmed from an incident where respondent issued a document, characterized as a subpoena, to Joaquin Opiana, Sr., complainant’s ailing father-in-law, requiring his appearance in court. This document was served by Barangay Captain Ruben Olayres, leading to an altercation and allegedly causing distress that contributed to Opiana’s subsequent death. Complainant further alleged that respondent ignored his written requests for a copy and certification of the subpoena and refused to receive follow-up letters, hindering access to court records.
In his defense, respondent claimed the document was merely a personal letter, typed on bond paper, requesting Opiana’s attendance at a meeting to mediate a family property dispute, initiated upon Olayres’s request. He asserted he acted in his personal capacity, aware that a subpoena must be properly issued and served, and that no official subpoena existed. During the proceedings, respondent applied for retirement.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sancho L. Alcantara is administratively liable for the acts complained of.

RULING

Yes, but only for simple misconduct and violation of R.A. No. 6713. The Court dismissed the charge for violation of R.A. No. 3019, §3(e) due to insufficiency of evidence, particularly the failure to prove the element of undue injury or actual damage. However, respondent was found liable for simple misconduct and for violating §5(a) and (d) of R.A. No. 6713 (the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards).
The legal logic is twofold. First, on the graft charge, liability under R.A. No. 3019, §3(e) requires proof that a public officer, in the performance of official duties, caused undue injury through manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence. The Investigating Executive Judge found, and the Court agreed, that complainant failed to substantiate the claim that respondent demanded money, and no actual damage was proven from the issuance of the letter.
Second, on the administrative charges, respondent’s act of using his official letterhead and title to summon a private individual for a non-official, personal mediation constituted simple misconduct. It was an act improper in the performance of official duties, falling short of the strict standards required of court personnel. His subsequent failure to act on and his refusal to receive the complainant’s legitimate inquiries regarding the matter further demonstrated a lack of professionalism and transparency, violating the ethical duty under R.A. No. 6713 to act promptly on public requests.
Considering respondent’s retirement, the Court imposed a fine of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for the misconduct and a reprimand for the ethical violation, in lieu of suspension. The balance of the retained portion of his retirement benefits was ordered released after deducting the fine.