SOPHIA ALAWI, complainant, vs. ASHARY M. ALAUYA,
Clerk of Court VI, Shari'a District Court, Marawi City, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
NARVASA, C.J.:
Sophia Alawi was (and presumably still is) a
sales representative (or coordinator) of E. B. Villarosa & Partners Co.,
Ltd. of Davao City, a real estate and housing company. Ashari M. Alauya is the
incumbent executive clerk of court of the 4th Judicial Shari'a District in
Marawi City. They were classmates, and used to be friends.
It appears that through Alawi's agency, a
contract was executed for the purchase on installments by Alauya of one of the
housing units belonging to the above mentioned firm (hereafter, simply
Villarosa & Co.); and in connection therewith, a housing loan was also
granted to Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).
Not long afterwards, or more precisely on
December 15, 1995, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa
& Co. advising of the termination of his contract with the company. He
wrote:
" ** I am formally
and officially withdrawing from and notifying you of my intent to terminate the
Contract/Agreement entered into between me and your company, as represented by
your Sales Agent/Coordinator, SOPHIA ALAWI, of your company's branch office
here in Cagayan de Oro City, on the grounds that my consent was vitiated by
gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by
the aforesaid sales agent which made said contract void ab initio.
Said sales agent acting in bad faith perpetrated such illegal and unauthorized
acts which made said contract an Onerous Contract prejudicial to my rights and
interests."
He then proceeded to expound in considerable detail and quite
acerbic language on the "grounds which could evidence the bad faith,
deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by the
unscrupulous sales agent ** ;" and closed with the plea that Villarosa
& Co. "agree for the mutual rescission of our contract, even as I
inform you that I categorically state on record that I am terminating the
contract **. I hope I do not have to resort to any legal action before
said onerous and manipulated contract against my interest be annulled. I was
actually fooled by your sales agent, hence the need to annul the controversial
contract."
Alauya sent a copy of the letter to the
Vice-President of Villarosa & Co. at San Pedro, Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City.
The envelope containing it, and which actually went through the post, bore no
stamps. Instead at the right hand corner above the description of the
addressee, the words, "Free Postage PD 26," had been typed.
On the same date, December 15, 1995, Alauya also
wrote to Mr. Fermin T. Arzaga, Vice-President, Credit & Collection Group of
the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) at Salcedo Village,
Makati City, repudiating as fraudulent and void his contract with Villarosa
& Co.; and asking for cancellation of his housing loan in connection
therewith, which was payable from salary deductions at the rate of P4,338.00
a month. Among other things, he said:
" ** (T)hrough this
written notice, I am terminating, as I hereby annul, cancel, rescind and
voided, the 'manipulated contract' entered into between me and the E.B.
Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd., as represented by its sales
agent/coordinator, SOPHIA ALAWI, who maliciously and fraudulently manipulated
said contract and unlawfully secured and pursued the housing loan without my
authority and against my will. Thus, the contract itself is deemed to be void ab
initio in view of the attending circumstances, that my consent was
vitiated by misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, dishonesty, and abuse of
confidence; and that there was no meeting of the minds between me and the
swindling sales agent who concealed the real facts from me."
And, as in his letter to Villarosa & Co., he narrated in some
detail what he took to be the anomalous actuations of Sophia Alawi.
Alauya wrote three other letters to Mr. Arzaga
of the NHMFC, dated February 21, 1996, April 15, 1996, and May 3, 1996, in all
of which, for the same reasons already cited, he insisted on the cancellation
of his housing loan and discontinuance of deductions from his salary on account
thereof.a He
also wrote on January 18, 1996 to Ms. Corazon M. Ordoez, Head of the Fiscal
Management & Budget Office, and to the Chief, Finance Division, both of
this Court, to stop deductions from his salary in relation to the loan in
question, again asserting the anomalous manner by which he was allegedly duped
into entering into the contracts by "the scheming sales agent."b
The upshot was that in May, 1996, the NHMFC
wrote to the Supreme Court requesting it to stop deductions on Alauya's UHLP
loan "effective May 1996," and began negotiating with Villarosa &
Co. "for the buy-back of ** (Alauya's) mortgage, and ** the refund of
** (his) payments."c
On learning of Alauya's letter to Villarosa
& Co. of December 15, 1995, Sophia Alawi filed with this Court a verified
complaint dated January 25, 1996 -- to which she appended a copy of the letter,
and of the above mentioned envelope bearing the typewritten words, "Free
Postage PD 26."[1] In
that complaint, she accused Alauya of:
1. "Imputation
of malicious and libelous charges with no solid grounds through manifest
ignorance and evident bad faith;"
2. "Causing
undue injury to, and blemishing her honor and established reputation;"
3. "Unauthorized
enjoyment of the privilege of free postage **;" and
4. Usurpation of
the title of "attorney," which only regular members of the Philippine
Bar may properly use.
She deplored Alauya's references to her as
"unscrupulous, swindler, forger, manipulator, etc." without
"even a bit of evidence to cloth (sic) his allegations with the essence of
truth," denouncing his imputations as irresponsible, "all
concoctions, lies, baseless and coupled with manifest ignorance and evident bad
faith," and asserting that all her dealings with Alauya had been regular
and completely transparent. She closed with the plea that Alauya "be
dismissed from the service, or be appropriately disciplined (sic) ** "
The Court resolved to order Alauya to comment on
the complaint. Conformably with established usage that notices of resolutions
emanate from the corresponding Office of the Clerk of Court, the notice of
resolution in this case was signed by Atty. Alfredo P. Marasigan, Assistant
Division Clerk of Court.[2]
Alauya first submitted a "Preliminary
Comment"[3] in
which he questioned the authority of Atty. Marasigan to require an explanation
of him, this power pertaining, according to him, not to "a mere Asst. Div.
Clerk of Court investigating an Executive Clerk of Court." but only to the
District Judge, the Court Administrator or the Chief Justice, and voiced the
suspicion that the Resolution was the result of a "strong link"
between Ms. Alawi and Atty. Marasigan's office. He also averred that the
complaint had no factual basis; Alawi was envious of him for being not only
"the Executive Clerk of court and ex-officio Provincial Sheriff and
District Registrar," but also "a scion of a Royal Family **."[4]
In a subsequent letter to Atty. Marasigan, but
this time in much less aggressive, even obsequious tones,[5] Alauya
requested the former to give him a copy of the complaint in order that he might
comment thereon.[6] He
stated that his acts as clerk of court were done in good faith and within the
confines of the law; and that Sophia Alawi as sales agent of Villarosa &
Co. had, by falsifying his signature, fraudulently bound him to a housing loan
contract entailing monthly deductions of P4,333.10 from his salary.
And in his comment thereafter submitted under
date of June 5, 1996, Alauya contended that it was he who had suffered
"undue injury, mental anguish, sleepless nights, wounded feelings and
untold financial suffering," considering that in six months, a total of P26,028.60
had been deducted from his salary.[7] He
declared that there was no basis for the complaint; in communicating with
Villarosa & Co. he had merely acted in defense of his rights. He denied any
abuse of the franking privilege, saying that he gave P20.00 plus
transportation fare to a subordinate whom he entrusted with the mailing of certain
letters; that the words: "Free Postage PD 26," were typewritten on
the envelope by some other person, an averment corroborated by the affidavit of
Absamen C. Domocao, Clerk IV (subscribed and sworn to before respondent
himself, and attached to the comment as Annex J);[8] and
as far as he knew, his subordinate mailed the letters with the use of the money
he had given for postage, and if those letters were indeed mixed with the
official mail of the court, this had occurred inadvertently and because of an
honest mistake.[9]
Alauya justified his use of the title,
"attorney," by the assertion that it is "lexically
synonymous" with "Counsellors-at-law," a title to which Shari'a
lawyers have a rightful claim, adding that he prefers the title of
"attorney" because "counsellor" is often mistaken for
"councilor," "konsehal or the Maranao term "consial,"
connoting a local legislator beholden to the mayor. Withal, he does not
consider himself a lawyer.
He pleads for the Court's compassion, alleging
that what he did "is expected of any man unduly prejudiced and
injured."[10] He
claims he was manipulated into reposing his trust in Alawi, a classmate and
friend.[11] He
was induced to sign a blank contract on Alawi's assurance that she would show
the completed document to him later for correction, but she had since avoided
him; despite "numerous letters and follow-ups" he still does not know
where the property -- subject of his supposed agreement with Alawi's principal,
Villarosa & Co. -- is situated;[12]He
says Alawi somehow got his GSIS policy from his wife, and although she promised
to return it the next day, she did not do so until after several months. He
also claims that in connection with his contract with Villarosa & Co.,
Alawi forged his signature on such pertinent documents as those regarding the
down payment, clearance, lay-out, receipt of the key of the house, salary
deduction, none of which he ever saw.[13]
Averring in fine that his acts in question were
done without malice, Alauya prays for the dismissal of the complaint for lack
of merit, it consisting of "fallacious, malicious and baseless
allegations," and complainant Alawi having come to the Court with unclean
hands, her complicity in the fraudulent housing loan being apparent and
demonstrable.
It may be mentioned that in contrast to his two
(2) letters to Assistant Clerk of Court Marasigan (dated April 19, 1996 and
April 22, 1996), and his two (2) earlier letters both dated December 15, 1996
-- all of which he signed as "Atty. Ashary M. Alauya" -- in his
Comment of June 5, 1996, he does not use the title but refers to himself as
"DATU ASHARY M. ALAUYA."
The Court referred the case to the Office of the
Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation.[14]
The first accusation against Alauya is that in
his aforesaid letters, he made "malicious and libelous charges (against
Alawi) with no solid grounds through manifest ignorance and evident bad
faith," resulting in "undue injury to (her) and blemishing her honor
and established reputation." In those letters, Alauya had written inter
alia that:
1) Alawi obtained
his consent to the contracts in question "by gross misrepresentation,
deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence;"
2) Alawi acted in
bad faith and perpetrated ** illegal and unauthorized acts ** ** prejudicial to
** (his) rights and interests;"
3) Alawi was an
"unscrupulous (and "swindling") sales agent" who had fooled
him by "deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, dishonesty and abuse of
confidence;" and
4) Alawi had
maliciously and fraudulently manipulated the contract with Villarosa & Co.,
and unlawfully secured and pursued the housing loan without ** (his) authority
and against ** (his) will," and "concealed the real facts **."
Alauya's defense essentially is that in making
these statements, he was merely acting in defense of his rights, and doing only
what "is expected of any man unduly prejudiced and injured," who had
suffered "mental anguish, sleepless nights, wounded feelings and untold
financial suffering," considering that in six months, a total of P26,028.60
had been deducted from his salary.[15]
The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713) inter alia enunciates
the State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost
responsibility in the public service.[16] Section
4 of the Code commands that "(p)ublic officials and employees ** at all
times respect the rights of others, and ** refrain from doing acts contrary to
law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and
public interest."[17] More
than once has this Court emphasized that "the conduct and behavior of
every official and employee of an agency involved in the administration of
justice, from the presiding judge to the most junior clerk, should be
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct must at
all times be characterized by, among others, strict propriety and decorum so as
to earn and keep the respect of the public for the judiciary."[18]
Now, it does not appear to the Court consistent
with good morals, good customs or public policy, or respect for the rights of
others, to couch denunciations of acts believed -- however sincerely -- to be
deceitful, fraudulent or malicious, in excessively intemperate. insulting or
virulent language. Alauya is evidently convinced that he has a right of action
against Sophia Alawi. The law requires that he exercise that right with
propriety, without malice or vindictiveness, or undue harm to anyone; in a
manner consistent with good morals, good customs, public policy, public order,
supra; or otherwise stated, that he "act with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith."[19] Righteous
indignation, or vindication of right cannot justify resort to vituperative
language, or downright name-calling. As a member of the Shari'a Bar and an
officer of a Court, Alawi is subject to a standard of conduct more stringent
than for most other government workers. As a man of the law, he may not use
language which is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing, or otherwise
improper.[20] As
a judicial employee, it is expected that he accord respect for the person and
the rights of others at all times, and that his every act and word should be
characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy, dignity. His radical deviation
from these salutary norms might perhaps be mitigated, but cannot be excused, by
his strongly held conviction that he had been grievously wronged.
As regards Alauya's use of the title of
"Attorney," this Court has already had occasion to declare that
persons who pass the Shari'a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine
Bar, hence may only practice law before Shari'a courts.[21] While
one who has been admitted to the Shari'a Bar, and one who has been admitted to
the Philippine Bar, may both be considered "counsellors," in the
sense that they give counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the
latter is an "attorney." The title of "attorney" is
reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law
and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing;
and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.
Alauya says he does not wish to use the title,
"counsellor" or "counsellor-at-law," because in his region,
there are pejorative connotations to the term, or it is confusingly similar to
that given to local legislators. The ratiocination, valid or not, is of no
moment. His disinclination to use the title of "counsellor" does not
warrant his use of the title of attorney.
Finally, respecting Alauya's alleged
unauthorized use of the franking privilege, the record contains no evidence
adequately establishing the accusation.
WHEREFORE, respondent Ashari M. Alauya is hereby REPRIMANDED for the use of
excessively intemperate, insulting or virulent language, i.e., language
unbecoming a judicial officer, and for usurping the title of attorney; and he
is warned that any similar or other impropriety or misconduct in the future
will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento