JUDGE GUILLERMO P. AGLORO, COMPLAINANT, V. COURT INTERPRETER LESLIE BURGOS, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE/CLERK III ANNALIZA P. SANTIAGO, COURT STENOGRAPHER MARISSA M. GARCIA, AND CLERK III…

This is an administrative matter which stemmed from an oral report made by the complainant, Judge Guillermo P. Agloro (Judge Agloro), Presiding Judge of Branch 83, Regional Trial Court, Malolos City, Bulacan (RTC-Malolos),
regarding certain irregularities relative to the petition for
reconstitution of four (4) transfer certificates of title docketed as
LRC Case No. P-335-2011 (LRC case).^[1]

The Antecedents

On May 17, 2012, Judge Agloro formalized his oral report to then Executive Judge Renato C. Francisco (EJ Francisco) of RTC-Malolos. In his Private and Confidential Memo^[2]
to EJ Francisco, he reported that, based on his own investigation, the
LRC case was raffled off to Branch 77 but for “unknown reason,” the
record of the case appeared in Branch 83; that the petition was heard
and granted by Branch 83 in its Order,^[3]
dated November 4, 2011; that he came to know that the registration of
the entry of judgment for the November 4, 2011 Order was refused by the
Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) because the LRC case was
raffled off to Branch 77, and not to Branch 83; and that he was in a
predicament because there was a pending motion for execution, yet the
decision was not yet final and executory.

In response, EJ Francisco issued a memorandum^[4]
to the OCC personnel and to the OIC/Legal Researcher of Branch 77 to
explain how the LRC case was raffled to Branch 77 and yet appeared in
Branch 83.

On July 5, 2012, the new Executive Judge, Ma. Theresa V. Mendoza­Arcega (EJ Arcega),^[5] wrote a letter^[6]
addressed to Deputy Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva, referring
the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) after she had
conducted her own investigation on the personnel of the OCC and Branch
83 regarding the apparent anomalies surrounding the LRC case. She also
forwarded the case folder of the LRC case from Branch 77 and the case
folder from Branch 83, together with the affidavits of the court
personnel.

In a letter,^[7]
dated September 28, 2012, the OCA acknowledged the letter of EJ
Arcega and directed her to conduct a more exhaustive investigation
and to submit a detailed report.

The Investigation Report of EJ Arcega

In compliance, EJ Arcega submitted her Report,^[8]
dated February 18, 2013, confirming what Judge Agloro had previously
reported to then EJ Francisco that the LRC case was raffled off to
Branch 77. EJ Arcega further explained that the case records delivered
to, and received by, Branch 77 contained the raffle sheet bearing the
signatures of the eight (8) members of the raffle committee, and the
summary of legal fees and assessment form from the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan. On the other hand, the case records
found with Branch 83 did not include the summary of legal fees and
assessment. Furthermore, it bore only three (3) signatures which were
already declared by EJ Francisco and the other members of the raffle
committee as forgeries. EJ Arcega also summarized the explanation given
by every person apparently involved in the irregularities, attending the
LRC case, as follows:

Judge Rolando J. Bulan,
Presiding Judge, Branch 77, explained that the LRC case was raffled off
to Branch 77 on June 6, 2011. He, however, noticed that the Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) numbers of the four (4) certificates
sought to be reconstituted were not indicated in the petition and
instead, “N/A’s” were written in their respective places. Thus, he
issued an order, dated July 15, 2011, directing petitioner Felicisima B.
Buendia (Buendia) to show legal basis stating that a TCT
without the corresponding number could be reconstituted. The LRC case
was, however, not set for hearing because Buendia failed to comply with
the aforementioned directive.^[9]

Atty. Miguel Larida (Atty. Larida),
Buendia’s counsel, claimed that sometime in June or July 2011, his
office received a copy of an order from Branch 83 setting the LRC case
for initial hearing; that Atty. Renato Dilag appeared for their office
as counsel for Buendia; that he was confronted by an order issued by
Branch 77, also assuming jurisdiction over the LRC case, but he did not
entertain the same because the proceedings before Branch 83 were about
to be terminated; and that he had neither knowledge nor information as
to how the LRC case was assigned to Branch 83.^[10]

Liwayway S.J. Pagdangan, Administrative Officer I; Ronalie B. Reyes, Clerk III; and Cinderella T. Canoza,
Clerk III, all of the OCC, denied any participation in the anomaly.
They explained that after the raffle of the LRC case to Branch 77, the
records thereof were delivered to the said branch by Marita M. Esguerra (Esguerra), the duly authorized utility worker assigned in the LRC Section.^[11]
Esguerra corroborated the aforesaid statements and asserted that
the receipt of the subject records was acknowledged by Cecilia Baesa, Clerk of Branch 77, as evidenced by her signature in the record book Esguerra was carrying at that time.^[12]

Juliana M. Raymundo, OIC of Branch 77, confirmed
the receipt of the subject records by their branch. She further
clarified that the said records remained in their custody because they
officially received the same.^[13]

Leslie J. Burgos (Burgos),
OIC/Interpreter of Branch 83, averred that sometime in May 2012, she
was informed by Julieta Fajardo (Fajardo), then Clerk-in-Charge for
criminal cases of Branch 83, that she came across a raffle sheet which
indicated that the LRC case was actually raffled to Branch 77, and not
to their branch. Fajardo, when summoned, orally confirmed the statement
of Burgos that she confronted respondent Annaliza P. Santiago (Santiago),
Clerk-in-Charge for civil and land registration cases of Branch 83,
regarding her discovery, but the latter responded merely by pointing her
lips at the direction of Marissa Garcia (Garcia), Court Stenographer of Branch 83.^[14]

To personally confirm the information, Burgos checked the
logbook for land registration cases raffled to their branch and
discovered that the LRC case was not recorded therein. She further
stated that previously, a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution
relating to the LRC case was filed in their branch, but the same was
denied. Subsequently, however, another motion for execution^[15]
was filed, but this time, a photocopy of the cancelled entry of
judgment was attached thereto. Burgos further claimed that she had
nothing to do with the attempt to register the entry of judgment on
February 20, 2012 as the same did not bear her signature. The entry of
judgment was apparently prepared by Garcia who signed the same for
Burgos.^[16]

Annaliza P. Santiago, Clerk III, OCC, but
detailed at Branch 83, claimed that sometime in June 2011, she came
across the records of the LRC case on top of her table; and that, per
her usual practice, she stamped received the said record, docketed it in
their docket book, and transmitted it to the person in charge of the
preparation of the initial hearing.^[17]

For her part, Branch 83 Stenographer Marissa M. Garcia
admitted that she prepared the order setting the LRC case for initial
hearing, and the final order granting the petition. She reasoned,
however, that she only did the same in her capacity as a senior
stenographer who merely assisted another stenographer, Marilou de Guzman
(de Guzman). She also admitted signing the cancelled entry of
judgment, but only because then OIC Burgos was absent or her whereabouts
at that time were unknown to them. Burgos, however, denied that she was
absent on February 20, 2012, as evidenced by her daily time record (DTR)
for said date. She also alleged in her supplemental affidavit that
Branch 83 was using an old logbook as record book for newly raffled
cases, which she earlier checked and found that the LRC case was never
recorded, but that after the February 20, 2012 incident, the logbook
turned up neatly covered and the LRC case had already been entered in
the said logbook.^[18]

On March 5, 2014, the OCA Legal Office recommended that the
July 5, 2012 Letter and the February 18, 2013 Investigation Report of EJ
Arcega be considered as a complaint against Burgos, Santiago, Garcia,
and Fajardo, all of Branch 83, RTC-Malolos, and that the said
respondents be directed to comment on the complaint.^[19]

On April 4, 2014, the OCA directed respondents Burgos,
Fajardo, Santiago, and Garcia to file their respective comments.^[20]

The Respondents’ Position

In her Comment,^[21]
dated May 30, 2014, Burgos reiterated the explanation she gave to EJ
Arcega and the statements contained in her previous affidavits.^[22]
She also claimed that in no more that two decades of service, she had
never been involved in any irregularity and she had served the Judiciary
and the public faithfully and honestly; and that her track record would
speak for the reason she was appointed the OIC of their branch. She,
however, ascribed bad faith and connivance on respondents Santiago and
Garcia. Burgos alleged that after reporting the anomaly to Judge Agloro,
she conducted her own investigation on the matter. During the course
thereof, she learned from one of the administrative officers of the OCC
that prior to the raffle of the LRC case to Branch 77, Garcia
went to the OCC carrying a case record/folder apparently containing
copies of the petition and inquired from the OCC whether it would be
possible for the same to be raffled to Branch 83.

Burgos further averred that on February 20, 2012, when the OCC
refused to receive the entry of judgment, Garcia personally retrieved
it and caused its cancellation; and that more than a month later on
March 28, 2012 Garcia, without her knowledge, issued and signed a
certified true copy of the said entry of judgment, which was
thereafter used by Buendia as an attachment to her motion for
execution. She also belied Garcia’s claim that the latter merely
assisted the other stenographer, de Guzman, to prepare the initial
order because de Guzman asked for her help. Burgos attached the
DTR of de Guzman on June 8, 2011, the date of the initial order,
showing de Guzman was on leave and she could not have asked for Garcia’s
help.

Burgos also dismissed Santiago’s explanations as
mere flimsy excuses. Contrary to her claim, what she did was not the
usual practice in the office. According to Burgos, in receiving
case records from the OCC ‘s Raffle Section, the standard
procedure was for the clerk-in-charge or the receiving clerk
to sign in the logbook carried by the OCC personnel to
evidence the actual receipt of the records. After receipt of the
records, the details of the case folders would be entered in the
clerk-in-charge’s logbook. With the LRC case, however, Santiago never
bothered to comply with the usual practice. Moreover, Burgos noted that
it was Santiago who brought the entry of judgment to the OCC.

Fajardo, in her Comment,^[23]
dated May 30, 2014, narrated how she accidentally discovered that the
LRC case was raffled to Branch 77, while compiling their copies of the
raffle sheets. She also stated that she told OIC Burgos what she found
out; that she asked Santiago about the matter; and that she explained to
EJ Arcega why she did not file any affidavit during the investigation
because she was trying to avoid conflict with Garcia who is not her
friend.

In their separate comments,^[24]
both dated June 25, 2014 Santiago and Garcia merely reiterated their
allegations in their previous affidavits without rebutting, or offering
any explanation to, the points raised by Burgos and Fajardo.

On November 25, 2014, the Manifestation with Notice of Death^[25]
of respondent Fajardo was filed by her widower, Reynaldo L. Fajardo,
praying for the dismissal of the case against her on account of her
death. On June 25, 2015, her widower filed the Omnibus Motion^[26] reiterating the prayer for the dismissal of the case against her.

The OCA Recommendation

On July 28, 2016, the OCA made the following recommendation:

The OCA opined that the evidence gathered against Santiago was
insufficient to establish a link between her and Garcia’s scheme because
her acts were done in accordance with her usual daily routine in the
office. Nevertheless, the OCA concluded that Santiago was aware of
Garcia’s misconduct but, for whatever reason, she chose to seal her lips
and conceal the latter’s wrongdoing.

As to Garcia, the OCA was convinced that she played an
indispensable role in ensuring the success of the nefarious scheme. It
observed that before the actual raffle, Garcia inquired with the OCC
whether it was possible for the LRC petition to be raffled to Branch 83;
that she participated in the subject case, having prepared practically
all the orders in the said case; that she railroaded the disposition of
the LRC case by issuing an entry of judgment therefor and, thus,
usurping the function of Burgos as OIC of Branch 83; and that she
personally retrieved the entry of judgment and had it cancelled, when
the OCC refused to register the same.

The Court concurs with the findings and recommendation of the OCA subject to certain modifications.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court agrees that there is a dearth of evidence to hold
Burgos administratively liable. Indeed, no participation, whatsoever,
relating to the subject scheme could be attributed to her. On the
contrary, Burgos participated, not in the realization, but in the
investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the devious
scheme. The records would also show that Burgos came to know of the
misdeed only after Fajardo had reported the same to her. Thus, the Court
concurs with the conclusion of the OCA that Burgos could not be made
administratively liable as she could not have prevented the devious
scheme by any amount of diligence.

As regards Fajardo,
jurisprudence is settled that the death of a respondent does not
preclude a finding of administrative liability, subject to certain
exception.^[28] In the case of Gonzales v. Escalona^[29] (Gonzales), the Court wrote:

While his death intervened after the completion of the
investigation, it has been settled that the Court is not ousted of its
jurisdiction over an administrative matter by the mere fact that the
respondent public official ceases to hold office during the pendency of
the respondent’s case; jurisdiction once acquired, continues to exist
until the final resolution of the case.^[30]

The above rule, however, admits of exceptions. In Gonzales, citing the case of Limliman vs. Judge Ulat-Marrero,^[31]
the Court held that the death of the respondent necessitated the
dismissal of the administrative case upon a consideration of any of the
following factors: first, if the respondent’s right to due process was not observed; second, the presence of exceptional circumstances in the case on the grounds of equitable and humanitarian reasons; and third, the kind of penalty imposed.

In the case against Fajardo, none of the aforesaid exceptions
exists. As borne by the records, Fajardo’s right to due process was not
violated as she was given the opportunity to answer the charges against
her. In fact, Fajardo was able to file her comment before the OCA.
Neither could equitable or humanitarian reasons be sufficient ground for
the dismissal of the present case. Respondent’s demise, alone, could
not be considered sufficient ground to justify the dismissal of the
administrative case on the ground of equitable or humanitarian reason.
Thus, the case against Fajardo could not be dismissed merely on account
of her death.

Nevertheless, the Court is convinced that the case
against Fajardo must be dismissed for want of evidence against her.
Just like in the case of Burgos, there was lack of evidence to show that
Fajardo was involved in this anomaly. In fact, it was her actions which
led to the discovery of the irregularity. If not for her discovery,
this Court would not have the opportunity to mete the appropriate
penalties for the persons responsible for this reprehensible scheme. The
administrative charge against Fajardo must perforce be dismissed.

The Court likewise concurs with the recommendation of the OCA
with respect to Garcia, but modifies its findings in the case of
Santiago. The Court is convinced that Santiago is also administratively
liable for grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service.

Dishonesty is defined as a
disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack
of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack
of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or
betray.^[32]

Misconduct,
on the other hand, is a transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence
by the public officer.^[33]
The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of
corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard
established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.^[34]

Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service refers to acts
or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish
– or tend to diminish – the people’s faith in the Judiciary.^[35] Understandably, dishonesty and grave misconduct constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.^[36]

In this case, the record is replete with evidence pointing not only to
Garcia but also to Santiago as the persons responsible for the subject
misdeed.

First, with respect to Garcia, testimonial and
documentary evidence reveals her unwarranted interest in the LRC case.
Garcia performed numerous acts which led to no other conclusion than
that she was instrumental and complicit in making sure that the petition
would be granted. Garcia first approached the OCC and tried to persuade
them to have the LRC case assigned to Branch 83. Her request was denied
as there was a process of raffling off the cases. This, however, did
not stop Garcia from pursuing her objective. When the LRC case
mysteriously appeared in Branch 83, it was Garcia who practically
prepared all the orders relating to the said case. More importantly, it
was Garcia who prepared the draft of the November 4, 2011 Order which
granted the petition.

Moreover, apart from preparing the draft of
the subject order, Garcia surreptitiously issued an entry of judgment
for the same on February 20, 2012. Garcia claimed that she only issued
the subject entry of judgment to prevent the disruption of service
because Burgos was absent on that day. It must be noted that it was the
function of Burgos, as OIC, to prepare and sign the entry of judgment.
Regrettably for Garcia, Burgos was able to successfully rebut her claim
by attaching her DTR for February 20, 2012 to prove that she was present
on the said date.

Likewise, aside from failing to inform Burgos
of the said entry of judgment, Garcia notified neither the latter nor
Judge Agloro of the OCC’s refusal to receive the entry of judgment.

Finally, as to Santiago, the Court disagrees with the OCA that her acts
were done in accordance with her usual daily routine. Contrary to the
OCA findings, Santiago’s acts, relating to the present anomaly, could
not be considered as constituting simple neglect of duty because they
were not committed due to carelessness and indifference, but as a result
of a willful violation of the established rules. In fact, her
participation was an essential part of the scheme, without which, no
semblance of legitimacy could have attached to the proceedings before
Branch 83 regarding the LRC case.

As stated by Burgos, the
standard procedure in the trial court was for the clerk-in-charge to
receive the case records raffled to their branch from the OCC personnel
and to sign in the logbook carried by the latter to evidence receipt of
the records. A similar procedure was explained by the OCC staff when
they attested that the record of the LRC case was delivered to and
received by Branch 77.

Santiago could not claim simple
negligence for failing to comply with the said procedure. It must be
recalled that Fajardo confronted Santiago regarding the irregularity but
the latter responded by pointing to Garcia with her lips. Santiago
never denied this assertion. Her response to Fajardo’s inquiry only
shows that she was aware of the misdeed.

Furthermore, Santiago
also failed to inform Burgos and Judge Agloro of the OCC ‘s refusal to
register the entry of judgment for the order in the LRC case. As borne
by the OCC records, it was Santiago who brought the said entry of
judgment to the OCC. It was also Santiago who was asked by the OCC
personnel why she furnished the OCC an entry of judgment for the order
in the LRC case when it was officially raffled off to Branch 77. The
incident was witnessed by Fajardo and was never refuted by Santiago.

In sum, the totality of the evidence shows that Garcia and Santiago connived
to guarantee that the LRC petition would be acted on favorably.
Clearly, they were united in their efforts to ensure the realization of
their scheme without being found out. Despite the positive evidence and
allegations hurled against them, Garcia and Santiago chose to simply
deny their complicity without addressing the actions attributed to them.
Verily, their responsibility and culpability with regard to the
misdeed were established by substantial evidence. Their respective
participation in this misdeed and their continuous feigning of
innocence, constitute gross misconduct, serious dishonesty, and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Under Section 46, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Grave Misconduct and Serious
Dishonesty are grave offenses which merit the penalty of dismissal from
service even for the first offense. Such penalty shall carry with it the
cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement and
other benefits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in
any government agency or instrumentality, including any government-owned
and controlled corporation or government financial institution.^[37]

WHEREFORE,
the complaints against respondents Leslie J. Burgos, Court Interpreter,
and Julieta Fajardo, Clerk III, both of Branch 83, Regional Trial Court
of Malolos City, Bulacan, are DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Respondents Marissa M. Garcia, Court Stenographer, and
Annaliza P. Santiago, Clerk III, both of Branch 83, Regional Trial Court
of Malolos City, Bulacan, are found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and are, thus, DISMISSED
from the service with forfeiture of all their retirement and other
benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment
in any government office, including government-owned and controlled
corporations.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that on January 31, 2017 a Decision/Resolution,
copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the
above-entitled administrative matter, the original of which was received
by this Office on March 14, 2017 at 9:15 a.m.

^[2] Id. at 25.

^[3] Id. at 274-278.

^[4] Id. at 26.

^[5] Replaced EJ Francisco who was appointed Justice of the Court of Appeals.

^[6] Rollo, p. 24.

^[7] Id. at 20-21.

^[8] Id.at 6-19.

^[9] Id. at 7-8.

^[10] Id. at 8-9.

^[11] Id. at 28-30.

^[12] Id. at 66.

^[13] Id. at 43.

^[14] Id. at 12-13.

^[15] Id. 291-300.

^[16] Id. at 323-324.

^[17] Id. at 68.

^[18] Id. at 13-14.

^[19] Id. at 1-4.

^[20] Id. at 343-346.

^[21] Id. at 353-371.

^[22] Explanation, dated
June 15, 2012, id. at 51-52; Supplemental Sworn Statement (including
attachments), dated November 12, 2012, id. at 372-376.

^[23] Id. at 390-393.

^[24] Id. at 404-405, 406-410.

^[25] Id. at 411-412.

^[26] Id. at 417-420.

^[27] Id. at 441.

^[28] Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Ismael L. Salubre, Jr., 720 Phil. 23 (2013).

^[29] 587 Phil. 448 (2008).

^[30] Id. at 462.

^[31] 443 Phil. 732 (2003).

^[32] Judge Rojas, Jr. v. Mina, 688 Phil. 241, 249 (2012).

^[33] Office of the Clerk of Court v. Viesca, A.M. No. P-12-3092, April 14, 2015, 755 SCRA 385, 396.

^[34] In Re: Administrative Charge of Misconduct Relative to the Alleged Use of Prohibited Drugs (“Shabu”) of Reynard B. Castor, 719 Phil. 96, 100 (2013).

^[35] Consolacion v. Gambito, 690 Phil. 44, 55 (2012).

^[36] Supra, note 33.

^[37] Revised Rules of Administrative Cases in Civil Service, Rule 10, Section 52.