'Fixing'

It is of common knowledge that “fixers” abound in government service including the Judiciary. This is a fact of life that people have grudgingly accepted and learned to live with. Apparently, “fixing” is hard to prevent because there is really a very thin line separating the act of fixing with the legitimate act of extending assistance to people in need which is but part of public service. In this case of Cario however, the Supreme Court is able to discern and draw this thin line by a closer scrutiny of the facts and circumstances.

Cario was the Cash Clerk II of the Office of Clerk of Court of a Regional Trial Court (RTC). One time, Pinong, who had a pending case before the RTC regarding the titling of a land that he and his siblings inherited from their parents, went to Cario’s office and told the latter that he needed a surveyor. Since Cario knew a surveyor in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources he offered to assist Pinong and told the latter that he had to pay an initial fee of P2,000.

So Pinong handed the P2,000 initial fee to Cario who, in turn introduced him and gave the money to the surveyor. Subsequently, succeeding payments of another P2,000 then P6,000 were made by Pinong directly to the surveyor. But after the lapse of two years, the promised title could not be delivered yet. So Pinong instructed Cario to talk to the surveyor to ask for the return of the money. Since Pinong could not immediately get the money back, he already filed a letter-complaint against Cario for misconduct and violation of the Anti-Graft Law.

While the administrative case was pending, Cario went to Pinong’s house, returned the full amount of P10,000 and asked Pinong to withdraw the complaint. So on August 20, 2002, Pinong wrote the SC informing the latter that he had already executed an affidavit of desistance and/or retraction although he continued to maintain that it was Cario and not the surveyor who received the money from him.

Subsequently Cario’s resignation was accepted without prejudice to the continuation and outcome of the investigation. Then the investigating judge found Cario guilty of violating reasonable office rules and regulations and recommended that he be meted a P5,000 fine to be deducted from his Cario’s retirement benefits This was affirmed by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Both found that Cario merely allowed himself to appear to be acting as a middleman between Pinong and the surveyor but did not really act as such for profit because he turned over the initial P2,000 and did not directly receive the rest. Were the Judge and the OCA correct?

In a decision penned by Justice Arturo D. Brion, the SC said that they were not fully correct. The circumstances surrounding Cario’s actions show that they are not as neutral and innocuous as they appear. In the first place, he was a cash Clerk whose duty pertains solely to the financial transactions and not to such matter as the titling of the land. Cario and Pinong also had no previous relationship that would have justified Cario’s offer of assistance. Secondly, the referral to a surveyor is not an ordinary concern of a cash clerk. Cario appeared to have gone out of his way to get Pinong and the surveyor to meet. Thirdly, the task was not simply to do a survey as expected of a surveyor but the titling of the land. And most importantly, the first payment was made to Cario himself and later on Pinong followed up the release of the title from Cario indicating the latter’s active and deep role.