VIDALLON-MAGTOLIS vs Cielito M. Salud

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DELILAH          VIDALLON-MAGTOLIS,

COURT                  

OF APPEALS,                                   

     

CIELITO M. SALUD, 

CLERK IV, COURT OF APPEALS,      

A.M. No.  CA-05-20-P

Facts: Cielito Salud, Clerk IV, Mailing Section of the Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals (CA) stands charged

with the following offenses:

1.      Inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties;

2.      Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service; and

3.      Directly or indirectly having financial and material interest in an official transaction, under Section 22, paragraphs (p), (t) and (u), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law

Melchor Lagua  was charged with Homicide before the Regional Trial Court. Lagua’s bond was approved in a Resolution dated November 6. 2003. Salud was allegedly facilitating the service of the resolution to the National Penitentiary and order the release of Lagua. In the meantime, Atty. Madarang received a telephone call from a certain Melissa Melchor, who introduced herself as Lagua’s relative. It was about 2:00 p.m. The caller asked her how much more they had to give to facilitate Lagua’s provisional liberty. The caller also told Atty. Madarang that they had sought the help of a certain Rhodora Valdez of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, where the criminal case originated, but were told that they still had a balance to be given to Justice Magtolis and Atty. Madarang through the respondent. Atty. Madarang then called the said court and asked to speak to Ms. Valdez, pretending to be Lagua’s relative. Atty. Madarang. On November 11, 2003, Justice Magtolis called the respondent to her office. When confronted, the respondent denied extorting or receiving money for Lagua’s release, or in any other case. He, however, admitted serving the copies of resolution and order of release intended for Lagua and his counsel to Art Baluran. Justice Magtolis then called the respondent to a meeting with Clerk of Court Atty. Tessie L. Gatmaitan, who stated that she would transfer the respondent to another office which has nothing to do with cases.

                       

Issue: Whether or not the admission of text messages as evidence against Salud constitutes a violation of his right to privacy being an ephemeral electronic communication?

Held: Respondent Cielito M. Salud is found GUILTY of inefficiency and gross misconduct.

The respondent’s claim that the admission of the text messages as evidence against him constitutes a violation of his right to privacy is unavailing. Text messages have been classified as “ephemeral electronic communication” under Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, and “shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof.” Any question as to the admissibility of such messages is now moot and academic, as the respondent himself, as well as his counsel, already admitted that he was the sender of the first three messages on Atty. Madarang’s cell phone.