TOLENTINO v. UMALI

Marita Tolentino and Fely San Andres, Complainants vs. Sheriff IV Glenn Umali, Respondent

A.M. No. P-16-3615

January 24, 2017

FACTS:

On February 4 and 5, 2015, Judge Corazon A. Domingo-Rańola, Presiding Judge of RTC of Malolos City, Branch 10, received separate letter-complaints from Marita Tolentino and Fely San Andres, respectively alleging that Glenn Umali received the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00) from San Andres representing payment of the judgment debt awarded in Tolentino’s favor in Criminal Case No. 01-7892 then pending before the MTC of Pulilan, Bulacan. The letter-complaints requested a conference before Judge Rańola to resolve the issue because it appears that such amount was neither delivered to Tolentino or the clerk of court, nor was it deposited to the MTC’s bank account. Subsequently, Judge Rańola held the requested conference, during which Umali agreed to pay the unremitted judgement debt on or before March 13, 2015. Thereafter, Judge Rańola reported the matter to RExecutive Judge Ma. Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega of the RTC of Bulacan through a Memorandum dated February 17, 2015. Judge Arcega referred the Memorandum to the OCA for appropriate action.

Pursuant to the OCA’s directive, Umali filed his undated comment to the letter-complaints, asserting that the matter was merely a result of a misunderstanding, and that it had been resolved, since he already remitted the full amount of the judgment debt in Tolentino’s favor. After an evaluation of the records of the case and the submissions of the parties, the OCA recommended that respondent be dismissed from the service.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Umali is guilty of grave misconduct

HELD:

Yes. The Court agrees with the OCA’s recommendation. Under Section 46 (A) (3), Rule 10 on the Schedule of Penalties of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal from service in the first instance. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and being barred from taking civil service examinations.

Umali’s bare assertion that his failure to turn over the judgment debt in accordance with Rule 39 of the Rules of Court resulted from a “misunderstanding” is specious, at best. The fact that Umali did not offer any form of explanation as to the nature, cause and incidents of this so-called misunderstanding shows that it was a mere afterthought and a lame excuse offered after his misdeed had been discovered. Moreover, while the Court is aware that it may consider circumstances to mitigate the imposable penalty prescribed under the RRACCS, no such circumstance has been invoked, nor does any appear from the records of the case.

The Court finds respondent Glenn Umali guilty of grave misconduct, meriting the penalty of dismissal from service, with forfeiture of retirement and other benefits.