DOMINGA P. MASANGCAY, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE CARLOS T. AGGABAO, TANCHING L. WEE, ATTY. EDWIN O. BETGUEN, ELSA V. MANUEL, ESTRELLA V. MAGAT AND MELCHOR TOTTO, RESPONDENTS.

In a sworn letter-complaint^[1] filed
on 1 February 1993, complainant Dominga P. Masangcay, Clerk IV of the Office of
the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabarroguis, Province
of Quirino, charged respondents Judge Carlos T. Aggabao, Presiding Judge of
Branch 32; Atty. Edwin O. Betguen, Clerk of Court VI of Branch 31; Tanching L.
Wee, Sheriff IV of Branch 32; Elsa V. Manuel, Cash Clerk II; Estrella V. Magat,
Interpreter of Branch 31; and Melchor Totto, an RTC Aide of Branch 31, with the
following:

“1. Gambling
prohibited by law.

Judge Aggabao, Atty. Edwin O. Betguen, Melchor Totto, Estrella V.
Magat and Tanching L. Wee gamble with cards namely ‘Tong-It’ or ‘Pepito’
together with outsiders inside the Courtroom and any vacant place at the
Justice Hall during Office Hours. The
Judge plays with the group when [there are] no scheduled cases during office
hours. Atty. Betguen could not act on
the needs of the people who need his service immediately for he is gambling.

2. Receiving for personal use of a fee, gift or other valuable thing in the
course of official duties or in connection therewith when such fee, gift or
valuable thing is given by any person in the hope or expectation of receiving a
favor or better treatment than that accorded other persons or committing acts
punishable under the Anti-graft laws.

Judge Carlos T. Aggabao, Atty. Edwin O. Betguen, Estrella V. Magat,
Melchor Totto used to go with lawyers and clients who have pending cases in his
sala for a lunch picnic particularly at Atty. Delizo’s house. Judge Aggabao and Atty. Betguen go with
Atty. Beltejar for a lunch to a nearby restaurant too. These result to unfair judgment prejudicial
to the case of the adverse party. To
cite examples Civil Case No.­­­ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Taganas Vs. Allagones, PP.
Vs. Gaudencio Blas and other cases.

Atty. Betguen and Atty. Agnes Hernando ask for a fee in any
document he or she prepares, such as affidavits, contracts, Deed of Sales and
also ready documents needed for his or her signatures as Ex-Officio Notary
Public with the assistance of Elsa V. Manuel their fee collector but they do
not declare in the Record Book.

Elsa V. Manuel, Staff II In-Charge of Criminal Cases that are
disposed in the Office of the Clerk of Court usually ask for a fee ranging from
TWENTY (P20.00) PESOS to FIFTY (P50.00) PESOS from the person who wants to
withdraw the property bond.

3. Discourtesy in the
course of official duties.

Judge Aggabao shouts with insulting angry words at prosecuting
Fiscals or their witnesses during hearing, scolds Stenographic Reporters and
utter uncourteous words at them in the
Courtroom….

4. Dishonesty

Stand fans and typewriters issued by the Supreme Court were taken
at [sic] their houses by Judge Aggabao and Atty. Betguen for their personal
use….

5. Disgraceful and immoral
conduct

As Executive Judge, subordinate woman employee asks his advice
about her problem she encounters. He
usually takes advantage of the situation by asking for a short time date with
such employee. An employee who rejects
to his proposal is bad. He is always
hot at her and if she finds a mistake, he said he is going to dismiss such
employee. But if such employee accepts
his proposal she is good and sweet for him.

6. Nepotism

As Executive Judge, he recommends an employee to a vacant
position. Joel Totto was appointed RTC
Aide Branch 32. He is the son of
Melchor Totto, RTC Aide of Branch 31 who is the First Cousin of the wife of
Judge Aggabao. Our office is always
untidy. They do other jobs outside not
prescribed in their functions and duties. So Judge Aggabao requested the Provincial Government to employ aides
under local funds.

7. Improper or Unauthorized
Solicitations of contributions from subordinate employees, party litigants or
Private Practitioners.

Judge Aggabao distributed envelopes to Private Practitioners and
ask them for a help for his candidate.”

Attached to the complaint are the certification of one Alice
Mamate, Clerk of the Luzon Loggers Incorporated of Luna, Cabarroguis, Quirino,
that the service car of Judge Aggabao was, upon his request made through Joel
Totto, filled with thirty liters of diesel fuel on 10 October 1992, and the
affidavits of Joel Villanueva and Catalina Senica attesting to the playing of
cards by Judge Aggabao and other personnel in one of the courtrooms of the Hall
of Justice during office hours sometime in July 1992 and December 1992.

The respondents filed their sworn joint comment^[2]
on 2 April 1993. They denied the
charges for being malicious and baseless and alleged that:

1. Gambling is strictly prohibited within the
Justice Hall wherein the courts are housed and no gambling activities have been
done within it from the time Judge Aggabao assumed the post of Executive Judge;
the statement of Joel Villanueva in his affidavit is untrue as he could not
have come to the court due to fear because in July 1992 he stabbed Estrella
Magat on her breast when she refused to give P15,000.00 to him; and Catalina
Senica had later recanted, claiming that she was merely tricked by the
complainant into signing a prepared affidavit.

2. Only parties for special occasions,
tendered by Atty. Delizo, like his birthday celebrations, were attended by
court employees, lawyers, professionals, businessmen and government officials;
Atty. Delizo is an ex-Governor of Quirino and a well-known and respectable
lawyer; the Taganas case was decided 10 years ago and respondents Judge Aggabao
and Atty. Betguen did not go to a nearby restaurant for lunch with Atty.
Baltazar. The case of People vs. Blas
was not decided by Judge Aggabao but by Judge Gregorio Buenavista.

3. While respondent Atty. Betguen and Atty.
Hernando, both Clerks of Court, notarized documents because there are no
notaries public within the vicinity, they do so “for free since most of
the documents they notarize are already prepared documents”; respondent
Manuel never acted as their collector since it is not her assigned task to
collect fees.

4. No fee is charged for the withdrawal of
property bond in criminal cases.

5. Judge Aggabao does not shout with insulting
and angry words at prosecuting fiscals or witnesses, or scold or utter
uncourteous words at stenographic reporters; he has not taken advantage of a
woman, much less a subordinate; on the contrary, he has always been very kind
and honorable to court employees; neither has he committed nepotism in the
appointment of Joel Totto since the latter is a relative in the fifth civil
degree of affinity and was appointed to the unclassified service.

6. Judge Aggabao and Atty. Betguen did not
bring home any typewriter. The former
does not need any as he dictates his decisions, while the latter has his own
typewriter in the house. Neither of them
brought home any electric fan.

The respondents claimed that the complainant filed the complaint
to satisfy her desire for revenge. They
cite the following reasons in support of their claim:

1. Judge Aggabao, in December 1992, had
threatened to file administrative charges against the complainant for the loss
of the records of two criminal cases and reprimanded her when he learned that
she was collecting fees from lawyers or parties without issuing receipts, and
she also believed that she was convicted in a case because he failed to prevent
Melchor Totto arid Estrella Magat from testifying against her;

2. Respondent Atty. Edwin Betguen had issued to
her a memorandum directing her to show cause why she should not be
administratively charged for keeping, concealing or losing the records in a
criminal case for oral defamation against her which she received after its
remand by the Court of Appeals; Atty. Betguen had also issued to her memoranda
on several occasions concerning her inefficiency in work.

3. Respondents Estrella Magat and Melchor
Totto had testified against her in a case for oral defamation filed against
her, which led to her conviction.

4. Respondent Tanching L. Wee had filed a
complaint against her for her alleged anomalous actuations in not raffling
among the sheriffs foreclosure orders and writs of execution.

5. Respondent Elsa V. Manuel had insisted that
complainant should relinquish to her as Cash Clerk the duty pertaining to such
position, and reported to respondent Judge Aggabao and Atty. Betguen
complainant’s collection of legal and research fees without issuing the
corresponding receipts.

Attached to the joint comment are the
affidavits of the respondents’ witnesses.

On 30 June 1993, respondent Judge Aggabao filed a so-called
Addendum Evidence^[3] to which are attached: (1) the petition of all the employees of the Clerk of Court, dated 31
May 1993, requesting that the complainant be relieved from her post and barred
from entering the said office for being disrespectful and for the loss of
records; (2) Administrative Order No. 1 of Executive Judge Gregorio Buenavista,
dated 31 May 1993, ordering the temporary detail of the complainant with the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cabarroguis, Quirino; (3) the petition of all
the employees of the said MTC refusing to accept the complainant; and (4) the
indorsement of Judge Bannuar Bongolan of the said MTC indorsing the latter
petition to Executive Judge Buenavista and informing him that the complainant
is a persona non grata to his court personnel.

Pursuant to the recommendation of the Office of the Court
Administrator of 3 September 1993, the Court referred this case to Associate
Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez of the Court of Appeals for investigation,
report, and recommendation.^[4]

Justice Austria-Martinez conducted several hearings from November
1993 to August 1994. At the initial
hearing on 12 November 1993, the complainant and the respondents agreed on the
following facts:

1. Complainant is the respondent in
administrative complaints for (a) dishonesty filed by respondent Atty. Betguen,
which is pending investigation before Executive Judge Rosales of Branch 27 of
the RTC of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, and (b) non-raffling of a case filed with
the Supreme Court by respondent Wee in which complainant was found guilty;

2. Complainant is likewise the respondent in a
criminal case for infidelity in the custody of public documents or records
filed by respondent Betguen with the Ombudsman, which is still pending
investigation in said office; however, said case was filed after complainant
filed the instant complaint;

3. Respondents Magat and Totto were witnesses
against the complainant in oral defamation cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 901 and
902) which were filed ahead of the present case.^[5]

Complainant Masangcay presented three witnesses and also
testified in her behalf. Witness
Florentino Satulan testified that when he went to the Justice Hall in
Cabarroguis on 23 October 1992 he saw Atty. Betguen holding some playing cards.^[6]
Witness Catalina Senica testified that on two occasions, sometime on 11
November 1992 and December 1992, she went to see Atty. Betguen and in a room
which she described as a courtroom, she saw respondents Judge Aggabao, Atty.
Betguen, Magat, Wee, and Totto playing cards and that she was told they were
playing “tong-it.”^[7] Witness
Melchor Martinez corroborated the testimony of Senica that when she and
Martinez went to see Atty. Betguen on 11 November 1992, the latter made them
wait for some time before he came out of his office and notarized the special
power of attorney they brought to him. The complainant testified on the particulars of her other charges.

All the respondents testified, except Elsa V. Manuel who was not
served with the notices of the hearings as she was then already on a one-year
leave of absence. They presented as
witnesses other court personnel of the RTC of Cabarroguis. The witnesses were one in refuting the
allegations of complainant Masangcay and in asserting that a desire for revenge
motivated her in filing the complaint against them as they were instrumental,
either as complainants or witnesses, in administrative and criminal cases filed
or intended to be filed against her.

After the termination of the hearings, Justice Austria-Martinez
submitted to this Court her Report, dated 8 September 1994, wherein she gives a
detailed summary of the testimonies of the witnesses and then makes the
following findings:

“FINDINGS:

1. ON GAMBLING —

a. The testimony of Masangkay^[8]
does not deserve full faith and credence. Her ill-motive against the respondents is too obvious.

b. However, the testimonies of Satulan and
Senica established that respondents Judge Aggabao and Atty. Betguen together
with other persons were playing cards during office hours sometime in December,
1992 and on October 23, 1993.

c. The testimony of witness Senica that she also
had seen the said respondents Aggabao and Betguen gambling together with their
co-respondents Wee and Totto on November 11, 1992 appears to be an
after-thought as it was not stated in her Affidavit, dated January 29, 1993
(Exh. “C”, p. 15, Rollo).

d. The fact that witness Senica had signed the
affidavit dated February 23, 1993 (Exhs. “D” and “2”)
declaring that the contents of her previous affidavit dated January 29, 1993
(Exh. “C”) are not true and prepared by the Masangkay spouses, does
not render her testimony before the undersigned not credible. While it may be argued that she executed her
affidavit dated January 29, 1993 (Exh. “C”, p. 15, Rollo) and her
letter to the Administrator, dated March 8, 1993, upon instigation or under the
influence of Masangkay, the fact that Senica had the courage to appear before
the Investigator and reiterate her declarations in the affidavit (Exh.
“C”), in the presence of all the respondents, that she had seen
respondents Judge Aggabao and Atty. Betguen playing cards during office hours
at the court premises, convince the undersigned Investigator that indeed she
saw respondents Aggabao and Betguen playing cards sometime in December, 1992.

e. The same observation is true with respect to
the testimony of witness Satulan who positively testified that he had seen
Atty. Betguen holding some playing cards. Even if he had an axe to grind against Atty. Betguen regarding the
implementation of a writ of execution in a civil case, witness Satulan, a
simple farmer, would not have the courage to appear before the Investigator,
and, in the presence of the respondents, falsely testify against Atty. Betguen.

f. The fact that complaining witness Masangkay
initiated the present administrative case against the respondents, out of revenge
for having been convicted of the crime of oral defamation and the impending
case that at the time that her letter-complaint was filed on February 1, 1993,
respondents Judge Aggabao and Atty. Betguen had intended to file against her
for dishonesty and infidelity in safekeeping of documents, does not
automatically render the testimonies of Senica and Satulan against said
respondents Aggabao and Betguen not worthy of belief.

g. There is no sufficient evidence that Sheriff
Wee, RTC Aide Totto and Interpreter Magat engaged in gambling considering that
the affidavit of Satulan (Exh. “A”) referred only to Atty. Betguen
and that of Senica (Exh. “C”) referred only to Judge Aggabao and
Atty. Betguen. Their subsequent
testimonies during the investigation against the other respondents,
namely: Magat, Wee and Totto appear to
have been made as an afterthought to implicate them together with Judge Aggabao
and Atty. Betguen.

2. On ‘receiving for personal use of a fee,
gift or other valuable thing in the course of official duties … -?

a. Bare assertions of complaining witness
Masangkay are not sufficient to convict the respondents of the above
charges. There is no showing that Judge
Aggabao had stepped beyond the bounds of judicial ethics when, as admitted by
him, on special occasions, like the birthday of (ex-Governor) Atty. Delizo, he
was invited together with other government officials and prominent people.

b. However, the
testimony of Provincial Prosecutor Anthony Foz revealed that Judge Aggabao has
been occasionally fraternizing with lawyers in drinking sessions. (TSN, Hearing of August 2, 1994, p. 703,
Rollo).

c. The consumption slip (Exh. “X”)
signed by a certain Joel Totto and the certification of one Alice Mamate (Exh.
“X-1) are suffi­ciently explained by respondent Judge in his Affidavit
dated March 29, 1993, x x x. Besides, Masangkay
admitted during the investigation that she heard about it only from Totto which
is therefore pure hearsay. (TSN,
Hearing of July 8, 1994, p. 593, Rollo).

d. Masangkay’s claim that Mrs. Allagonez told
her that she gave money to respondent Totto for his co-respondent Judge Aggabao
does not deserve credence on the ground that it is hearsay. Besides, Mrs. Allagonez herself denied
having given any money to respondents Totto and Judge Aggabao.

e.     Likewise, Masangkay’s claim that Mrs.
Garingan gave T-shirts to respondent Betguen is denied by Mrs. Garingan herself
and therefore, there is no way of giving credence to Masangkay’s bare
assertions.

3. On discourtesy in the
course of official duties —

Mere claim of complaining witness Masangkay is not sufficient to
find Judge Aggabao guilty of discourtesy to the lawyers, their
clients/witnesses or to the court employees. Provincial Prosecutor Anthony Foz and Interpreter Loreta Garingan attest
to the fact that Judge Aggabao had not been discourteous in the performance of
his duties. No stenographer complained
about any abrasive actions committed against them by Judge Aggabao.

4. On Dishonesty —

The bare assertion of complaining witness Masangkay is not
sufficient to hold respondents Judge Aggabao and Atty. Betguen guilty of
bringing home stand fans and typewriters for their personal use. The undersigned Investigator takes note of
the Affidavit dated March 19, 1993 executed by Ma. Agnes D. Hernando,
subscribed and sworn to before Judge Gregorio A. Buenavista (Annex
“F”, Comments of respondents, p. 65, Rollo) wherein affiant declared
that she is Clerk of Court V of the RTC, Branch 32, Cabarroguis, Quirino; that
she is in-charge of the supplies and equipments in their office; that all their
office equipments are intact inside the Justice Hall Building. In the absence of any report from the
officer in charge of supplies and equipments in the Office of Judge Aggabao and
that of Atty. Betguen that the stand fans and typewriters subject-matter of
herein letter-complaint of Masangkay have been taken out of their respective
offices for personal use, the undersigned finds no valid reason to believe
Masangkay.

5. On Disgraceful and
Immoral Conduct of Judge Aggabao -?

a. Court Interpreter Garingan vehemently
denied having been held on the thigh by Judge Aggabao, directly contradicting
the testimony of Masangkay. For that
reason alone, Masangkay’s claim must fail.

b.        As to Masangkay’s assertion that she was
snuggled close by Judge Aggabao, moving his right hand from her head to her
shoulder to her arm with malice is difficult to believe. It is more probable that Masangkay merely
misunderstood the action of Judge Aggabao in trying to assure her about the
criminal case against her.

6. On Nepotism -?

Masangkay’s claim is not tenable. Section 59 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 on the Civil
Service Commission, provides:

‘SEC. 59. Nepotism. — (1) All appointment in the national, provincial,
city and municipal governments or in any branch or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations, made in favor of a
relative of the appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of the
bureau or office, or of the persons exercising immediate supervision over him,
are hereby prohibited.

As used in this Section, the word ‘relative’ and members of the
family referred to are those related within the third degree either of
consanguinity or of affinity.

(2) The following are exempted from the
operation of the rules on nepotism: (a)
persons employed in a confidential capacity, (b) teachers, (c) physicians, and
(d) members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines: Provided, however, That in each particular instance full report
of such appointment shall be made to the Commission. x x x’

According to
Masangkay, Judge Aggabao recommended Joel Totto and was appointed as the RTC
Aide in his sala, Branch 32; that Joel is the son of respondent Melchor Totto
(RTC Aide of Branch 31) who is the first cousin of Judge Aggabao’s wife. In other words, Joel Totto is Judge
Aggabao’s nephew by affinity by a first cousin of his wife which is already in
the fifth degree and therefore not covered by the above rule on nepotism.

7. On Improper or Unauthorized Solicitations of
Contributions from subordinate employees, party litigants or Private
Practitioners —

Masangkay’s
claim that she saw Judge Aggabao solicit contribution from a practitioner
cannot prosper. The practitioner referred
to is neither identified nor presented by Masangkay; and the bare allegations
of Masangkay whose motive in filing the charges renders her testimony not
credible, is not sufficient to find Judge Aggabao guilty of soliciting
contributions.”^[9]

Justice Austria-Martinez then concludes:

“CONCLUSIONS:

1. Respondents Judge Carlos T. Aggabao and
Atty. Edwin O. Betguen are guilty of playing cards during office hours in the
court premises. However, whether or not
they were gambling or playing for money is not established; and therefore,
sense of justice and fairness, leads the undersigned to the conclusion that they merely engaged in activities that
are improper, which officials like them should not be doing during office hours
and in the court premises.

Judge Aggabao failed to comply with Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct which provides that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance
of impropriety in all activities; and, Rule 2.01 which mandates that a judge
should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity
of the judiciary.

Atty. Betguen’s conduct is prejudicial to the best interest of the
service (Section 46[27] of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 on the Civil
Service Commission).

2. Respondent Judge Carlos T. Aggabao
occasionally fraternized with lawyers by having drinking sessions with
them. He is likewise guilty of not
complying with Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

3. All other charges against all the
respondents are not supported by substantial evidence.”

and submits the following
recommendations:

“RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.        
That Judge Carlos T. Aggabao be REPRIMANDED for acts of
impropriety, in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Ethics.

2.        
That Atty. Edwin O. Betguen be REPRIMANDED for conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service, under Section 46 (27) of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987 on the Civil Service Commission.

3.        
That all the other charges against all the respondents be
dismissed for lack of substantial evidence, except for respondent Elsa Manuel
(Cash Clerk II) who has been on leave of absence since October 11, 1993 (a
month before the start of herein
investigation) up to the present, with a prayer that the charges against her be
investigated by the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quirino,
and, that the investigation of the above-entitled administrative case by the
undersigned be considered closed and terminated.”

The above findings and conclusions of Justice Austria-Martinez,
being based on her meticulous and careful evaluation of the testimonies of the
witnesses and their credibility, are entitled to the highest degree of respect.

It may also be stressed that in their sworn joint comment, the
respondents deny only the charge of gambling but not the playing of cards
during office hours in one of the courtrooms. They admit that they attended parties tendered by Atty. Delizo, an
ex-governor of Quirino and a well-known and respectable lawyer, for special
occasions like his birthday celebrations. Respondent Atty. Betguen claims that while he, as the Clerk of Court,
notarized documents because there are no notaries public in the vicinity, he
did so for free since most of the documents presented to him had already been
drafted.

While there is insufficient proof of gambling, the playing of
cards during office hours in a courtroom by respondents Judge Aggabao and Atty.
Betguen is convincingly established not only by the testimonies of Satulan and
Senica, as found by the investigating Justice, but also by the respondents’
failure to deny this fact in their sworn joint comment. A courtroom is hardly the place for playing
cards. A courtroom is generally looked
upon by the people with high respect and not a few consider it as a sacred
place where witnesses testify under oath, where conflicts are resolved, rights
adjudicated, and justice solemnly dispensed. Making it a game room diminishes its sanctity and dignity. The playing of cards in the courtroom and
the occasional fraternization with lawyers in drinking sessions, established by
the testimony of Provincial Prosecutor Anthony Foz, made the respondent Judge
liable, at the very least, for impropriety in violation of Canon 3 of the
Canons of Judicial Ethics which requires that a judge’s official conduct should
be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only
upon the bench and in the performance of judicial
duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach.

Likewise, respondent Judge Aggabao should have avoided attending
parties for special occasions tendered by an ex-governor and a well-known and
respectable lawyer because his attendance could reasonably tend to raise
suspicion that his social relationship or friendship with Atty. Delizo would be
an element in his determination of Atty. Delizo’s cases, which may be great in
number because of his political and professional stature. Canon 30 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics
provides:

“It is not necessary to the proper performance of judicial
duty that judges should live in retirement or seclusion; it is desirable that,
so far as the reasonable attention to the completion of their work will permit,
they continue to mingle in social intercourse, and that they should not
discontinue their interests in or appearance at meetings of members of the
bar. A judge should, however, in
pending or prospective litigation before him be scrupulously careful to avoid
such action as may reasonably tend to waken the suspicion that his social or
business relations or friendship constitute an element in determining his
judicial course.”

Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
mandates that a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. While lawyers in Cabarroguis may not attribute
any impropriety for such acts, litigants, especially those whose adversaries
are the clients of Atty. Delizo, cannot help but have a well-founded fear that
Atty. Delizo must have received or may receive special favors from the
respondent Judge.

Respondent Atty. Betguen, as Clerk of Court, was also guilty of
malfeasance in office when, with the respondent Judge, he played cards in one
of the courtrooms during office hours. And, with his admission in the sworn joint comment that he notarized
documents, presumably in his capacity as ex officio notary public pursuant to Section
242 of the Revised Administrative Code, for free, he had deprived the
Government of the required fees therefor. Section 252 of the said Code provides:

“SEC. 252. Compensation
of notaries public. — ­No fee, compensation, or reward of
any sort, except such as is expressly prescribed and allowed by law, shall be
collected or received for any service rendered by a notary public. Such moneys collected by notaries public
proper shall belong to them personally. Officers acting as notaries public ex officio shall charge for their services the
fees prescribed by law and account therefor as for Government funds.”

While Atty.
Betguen wanted to appear charitable, he had in fact committed either neglect of duty or
inefficiency.

WHEREFORE, taking into account the recommendations of investigating Justice
Alicia Austria-Martinez and considering the foregoing observations, judgment
is hereby rendered:

1.
Declaring that respondent Judge Carlos T. Aggabao of Branch 32 of the Regional
Trial Court of Quirino violated Canons 3 and 30 of the Canons of Judicial
Ethics and Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, for which he is hereby
ADMONISHED to be more discreet in his actions, with a warning that the
commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
severely;

2. Finding
respondent Atty. Edwin O. Betguen, Clerk of Court VI, Branch 31 of the Regional
Trial Court of Quirino, guilty of malfeasance in office, neglect of duty or
inefficiency, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, for
which he is hereby REPRIMANDED with a warning that the commission of the same
or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely;

3. With respect to
the complaint against respondent Elsa V. Manuel, directing the Executive Judge
of the Regional Trial Court of Quirino to conduct an investigation and submit a
report and recommendation thereon within thirty (30) days from receipt from the
Office of the Court Administrator of certified true copies of the complaint in
this case and the joint comment thereon, as well as of the Addendum Evidence
submitted by respondent Judge Carlos T. Aggabao. The Office of the Court Administrator shall transmit said documents
to the Executive Judge within ten (10) days from notice hereof.

4. DISMISSING, for lack of substantial
evidence, the complaint against respondents Tanching L. Wee, Estrella V. Magat,
and Melchor Totto.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, (Chairman), Bellosillo, Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
Rollo, 11-13.

^[2]
Rollo, 37-50.

^[3]
Rollo, 124-126.

^[4]
Id., 146.

^[5]
Rollo, 189-190.

^[6]
TSN, 12 November 1993, 22-23.

^[7]
TSN, 19 November 1993, 11-14.

^[8]
The report of Justice Austria-Martinez uniformly used this spelling of the
surname of the complainant. The latter,
however, spells her surname in all her pleadings as MASANGCAY.

^[9]
Report, 23-28.