ERLINDA A. MENDOZA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE RODOLFO A. MABUTAS, RESPONDENT. JUDGE RODOLFO A. MABUTAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ERLINDA MENDOZA, RESPONDENT.

In his Order of 27 October 1987 in Criminal Cases Nos. 1342,
1419, 1546 and 1553, Judge Rodolfo A. Mabutas of the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calaca, Batangas recommended the immediate dismissal from the
service of Erlinda A. Mendoza, Clerk of Court of the
said court for frequent tardiness and/or absences without the “necessary
leave of absence” despite admonitions for her to reform, and for the
blatant disregard of courtesy and respect. A copy of the said order was
subsequently transmitted to the Office of the Court Administrator. In a 1st Indorsement dated 13
November 1987, then Deputy Court Administrator
Maximo A. Maceren referred
a copy of the order to Erlinda A. Mendoza and
required her to comment thereon.

In her letter of 21
December 1987, not only did Erlinda
answer the charges of Judge Mabutas, she also accused
the latter of oppression, abuse of position and conduct unbecoming of a judge.
While admitting that there were indeed occasions when she would be absent, Erlinda explained that such absences were due to
unavoidable circumstances such as sickness and other urgent matters. Being the
wife of the administrative pastor of their church, she claimed that she has
always made it a point to show proper respect and deference to her superiors.
She then accused Judge Mabutas of seeking to remove
her at all costs because he had wanted someone close to him to occupy her
position – someone who is not only attractive, but absolutely loyal to him as
well. She also averred that Judge Mabutas had
stripped her of her duties and ostracized her, thereby reducing her to a mere
figurehead, and had, on several occasions, uttered unsavory remarks against her
in the presence of her co-employees.

It was likewise asserted that Judge Mabutas
is not himself a model of punctuality; from 16 July to 30 October 1987, excepting the days Erlinda was on leave, he reported for work only every
Tuesday and Wednesday afternoon, on days when there were scheduled hearings or
preliminary examinations and when there were marriages to be solemnized. After
these hearings, he would immediately leave the office.

On 3 January 1989, Judge Mabutas wrote
a letter to then Deputy Court Administrator Juanito Ranjo informing him that despite the latter’s personal
exhortations to Erlinda Mendoza, she has continued
with her tardiness, this time aggravated by her frequent departures
“during office hours for long periods, without” the Judge’s
permission. Judge Mabutas then recommended that her
salary be withheld and that “she be proceeded against by (sic) a formal
investigation to uproot her from the position she is now holding.” This
drew an immediate comment from Erlinda who wrote
Deputy Administrator Ranjo on 13 January 1989; in her
letter, she branded the accusations hurled against her as “unadulterated
lies and unabashed oppression, borne out of malice, sinister motives and
perverted personal hatred, intended solely and principally to ‘uproot (me) from
the position (I am) now holding.'”

Thereupon, the Office of the Court Administrator docketed Erlinda Mendoza’s complaint, as contained in her 21 December 1987 letter, as ADM.
MATTER No. MTJ-88-142 and Judge Mabutas‘ complaint of
3 January 1989, in relation
to his 27 October 1987
Order in the aforesaid four (4) criminal cases, as ADM. MATTER No. P-89-291. Upon the recommendation of the Office of the Court
Administrator, this court, in the Resolutions of 1 June and 7 June 1989, respectively, referred the first
and second cases to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balayan, Batangas for
investigation, report and recommendation.

On 11 August 1989,
Judge Mabutas submitted to the Executive Judge of the
RTC of Balayan, Batangas,
Judge Ernesto H. Gorospe, his (Mabutas‘)
answer, dated 5 August 1989,
in ADM. MATTER No. MTJ-88-142.

A full-blown investigation was then conducted by Executive Judge Gorospe.

On 30 April 1993,
this Court received the 29 April 1993
Report and Recommendation of Judge Gorospe wherein he
presents the following conclusions and recommendations:

“Under the foregoing circumstances of the cases, it could be
concluded that the charge of Judge Rodolfo Mabutas
against Erlinda Mendoza was duly established, being
attested to by witnesses who are in a position to know the questioned
actuations of the respondent, being accompanied by related letters and
memoranda, being partially admitted to by respondent.

Respondent’s justification of the commission of the imputed acts, that of their being reflected in the daily time
records (DTR) does not justify the act. Such claimed justification may only be
a mitigating circumstance.

The respondent in Case No. MTJ-88-142 is
the judge of the Court and as such is clothed with authority if not impressed
with the obligation to instill discipline and observance of civil service
rules. The issuance of the questioned memoranda or orders are
(sic) necessary to the administrative functions. His orders are therefore
presumed to be lawful as in fact on their faces the said orders appear to be
lawful and in accord with his administrative authority. Respondent’s claim that
the said orders were issued out of personal hatred and his personal desire to
weed out respondent so the judge could place one of his choice (sic) must be
proven clearly and succinctly before the charges now being imputed must
proceed.

Summing up, this investigating Judge finds the respondent Erlinda A. Mendoza, liable and answerable to (sic) the
imputations hurled against her in Administrative Case No. P-89-291 of TARDINESS
and GALIVANTING (sic) DURING OFFICE HOURS.

In Administrative Case No. MTJ-88-142, the
Court finds that the imputations of OPPRESSION, ABUSE OF POSITION and CONDUCT
UNBECOMING OF A JUDGE was (sic) not established and therefore the case against
respondent Judge Rodolfo A. Mabutas be ordered
DISMISSED as being without merit.

It is recommended that Erlinda A.
Mendoza, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Calaca,
Batangas be meted a two (2) months (sic)
suspension.”

The above conclusions and recommendation with respect to
respondent Erlinda A. Mendoza are anchored on the
evidence submitted by Judge Mabutas consisting of his
and his witnesses’ testimonies, as well as the exhibits which he had marked and
offered in evidence; such testimonies and exhibits are summarized by Executive
Judge Gorospe in the aforesaid report as follows:

“The testimony of the complaining Judge suggests to (sic) the
following circumstances: That prior to March 20, 1987, in his capacity as
presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court, Calaca,
Batangas, he observed that the respondent Erlinda Mendoza, then and still is (sic) the Clerk of Court
of his Court was coming in late and going out early to and from office. He thus
caused issuance of a memorandum addressed to all the employees of the Court,
directing all employees to observe civil service rules as to working office
hours. Said memorandum was submitted as Exhibit “A”.

He equally observed that even as he has previously questioned the
manner of entering time of arrivals in the log-book, the Clerk of Court
(respondent) continued to maintain the entry in the log-book by ranking. Thus
on November 10, 1987, he caused the issuance of a memorandum addressed to
respondent Clerk of Court to change the manner of entry of arrivals in the
log-book so that he who arrives first will sign on top and followed by who
arrives immediately thereafter. That while this is not
full-proof as to the correctness of entry of time of arrival, it nevertheless
minimizes abuse of entry and will show who arrives last and late. The
memo/order was submitted as Exhibit “B”.

That on November 7, 1987,
he equally observed that respondent Clerk of Court was not reflecting in her
daily time record (DTR) the correct time of her arrival and departure, hence he
sent a memorandum to said respondent calling her attention to such acts. The
order was submitted as Exhibit “C”.

That inspite of memorandum (sic) and
promises for reforms, respondent kept on her errant ways, complaining (sic)
judge again sent a memorandum to respondent, calling her attention of (sic) her
repeated tardiness with warning (sic) that her DTR will not be signed. The
memorandum dated November 11, 1987
was submitted as Exhibit “E”.

That on August 31, 1988
said respondent kept on coming to office late, hence a memorandum calling again
on her tardiness. That the complaining judge equally observed that respondent
was sending her daily time records (DTR) to the Supreme Court, without the
signature of the Judge. He thus issued a memorandum which was submitted as
Exhibit “H”.

On November 21, 1988,
again a memorandum was sent to her calling her attention on (sic) her 104 days
leave of absence for the period of from May to October, 1988, which long leave
of absence is prejudicial to the service. The memorandum was submitted as
Exhibit “I”.

That again on June 6, 1989,
the respondent was sent another memorandum calling her attention on (sic) her
behavior of arriving late. This memorandum was submitted as Exhibit “K.”

That inspite of several warnings calling
the attention of the respondent on (sic) her errant ways, the respondent kept
on doing the same, the (sic) complaining judge, had to inform the Supreme Court
of the behavior of his Clerk of Court. To show that the matter was referred to
the Supreme Court, he submitted Exhibits “O”, “P” and
“Q” — Letters to Justice Ranjo, Leave
Section, Supreme Court and to the Office of the Court
Administrator.

The three other witnesses presented by the complaining Judge are
all employees of the Municipal Trial Court of Calaca,
Batangas, namely: Mrs. Ligaya
Manalo (Court Interpreter), Gloria Austria
(Court Stenographer) and Romeo Barzo (Court
employee).

Their testimony is (sic) to the following effect: That as such
Court employees, they know personally Judge Rodolfo Mabutas
and Mrs. Erlinda Mendoza, being the Judge and Clerk
of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Calaca, Batangas. That as such employees of the Court they have
personal knowledge of the fact that Mrs. Erlinda
Mendoza used to come to office late and that she used to leave the Court during
office hours. In short their testimony (sic) corroborated the statement or
testimony of Judge Rodolfo Mabutas on the matter of
respondent’s acts of tardiness and galivanting (sic)
during office hours.”

This Court notes that in Exhibit “I-1” (Adm. Matter No.
P-89-291), Mrs. Mendoza was absent due to personal or health reasons for a
total number of 104 days beginning May 1987 to October 1988. In fact, from 13
May to 15 July 1987 alone,
she was absent for 44 days.

On the other hand, Mrs. Mendoza’s evidence against Judge Mabutas is summarized by the investigating Executive Judge
in this wise:

“The testimony of the now-herein complainant Erlinda Mendoza may be summarized:

That she is (sic) the incumbent Clerk of Court for the last 25
years and is the same Clerk of Court who caused the filing of Administrative
Matter No. MTJ-88-142 and equally the respondent in Case No.
P-89-291. That the imputation against her for
tardiness and going out during office hours are (sic) false and without basis
and that the charges leveled against her were done only out of hatred and
designed to remove her from the service which acts of the respondent judge,
amounts (sic) to oppression, abuse of position and conduct unbecoming of a
judge.

In support of her claim by way of defense in Case
No. P-89-291 and in support of her complaint in Case
No. MTJ-88-142, Mrs. Erlinda Mendoza submitted
and caused to be marked the following:

x  x  x

[Exhibits “1” to “11,” inclusive, are enumerated].

Thereafter, Erlinda Mendoza continued to
present evidence on her charge against Judge Rodolfo Mabutas of OPPRESSION, ABUSE OF POSITION and CONDUCT
UNBECOMING OF A JUDGE.

In short, her testimony is anchored on the motive of the respondent
Judge in issuing the letters and memorandums which now appears (sic) in the
records as Exhibits of complaining Judge in Administrative Matter No. P-89-291.

Complainant Erlinda Mendoza claims that
the imputation of TARDINESS and GALIVANTING (sic)
DURING OFFICE HOURS, are (sic) false and the orders and memorandums were issued
by the respondent Judge due to personal hatred and desire of the Judge to have
the position of the complaining Clerk of Court be filled up by one of his
choice (sic).

In support of this verbal claim she submitted the following
exhibits:

x  x  x

[Exhibits “A” to “M,” inclusive, are
enumerated].”

After having carefully evaluated the oral and documentary
evidence of the parties, we find the above conclusions of the investigating
Executive Judge to be amply supported by the same, except with respect to the
case against Judge Mabutas which will be hereinafter
shown.

What cannot pass unnoticed are the several written exchanges
between Judge Mabutas and Erlinda
Mendoza wherein it is clear that the former tried his best to instill
discipline upon the latter and demand from her a serious commitment to perform
her public duties and responsibilities. Erlinda
considered these reminders as acts of oppression. With her admissions of
frequent absences and nearly habitual departures from office, during office
hours, without the permission of the head of office — Judge Mabutas — the latter’s acts cannot be branded as
oppressive. On the other hand, we find in Erlinda’s
letters to Judge Mabutas not just feeble attempts to
justify her culpable actions, but statements that betray her disrespect, if not
outright contempt, for the Judge. It is at once apparent that she has refused
to recognize the administrative and supervisory authority of Judge Mabutas over her. Aggravating an already unhealthy work
atmosphere, she has irreversibly prejudiced public interest and provided a bad
example to her subordinates.

Doubtless, Mrs. Mendoza has been remiss in her fidelity to her
office which demands accountability at all times and requires, inter alia,
dedication to duty and efficiency. She should therefore be reminded of Section
1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that:

“Public office is a public trust. Public officers and
employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism
and justice, and lead modest lives.”

In Sy vs. Academia (198 SCRA 705 [1991]), we
declared in no uncertain terms that “[T]his Court condemns and would never
countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in
the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability
and would diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the
Judiciary.”

For her neglect of duty, inefficiency, frequent unauthorized
absences and gallivanting during office hours, the penalty of suspension from
service for two (2) months as recommended by the investigating Executive Judge
is inadequate. We believe that the same should be increased to three (3)
months.

As to Judge Mabutas, while he admits in
his Answer dated 5 August 1989
that:

“x x x On
days that I do not have hearings, I stay home, doing some research, resolving
motions, making decisions and keeping up with the latest of the Supreme Court
decisions. x x x“

he also claims
that his house is located just a few meters from the office and that everybody
can reach him easily. We cannot sanction such a practice for he has never been
authorized to use his house as his office. A Judge must report to his office
even if he has no hearings on regular days. In Circular No. 13 dated 1 July
1987, this Court stressed the need for punctuality and the faithful observance
of office hours, with Judges being enjoined to strictly observe the requirement
of eight (8) hours of service a day. This was reiterated in Administrative
Circular No. 1 of 28 January 1988.
Also, under the Interim Rules Implementing Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, Judges of the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts are required, on a
rotation basis, to report on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. primarily to
act on petitions for bail and similar matters, while all Executive Judges,
whether in single or multiple salas, are mandated to
remain on duty on Saturday afternoons.

In Ubaldino A. Lacurom vs. Judge Pablo Atienza
(ADM. MATTER No. RTJ-90-456, 14 January 1992), we declared that the law
regulating court sessions does not permit any “day off” from regular
office hours to enable a judge to engage exclusively in research or
decision-writing, no matter how important. In Siasico vs. Sales (71 SCRA 139, 146 [1976]), this Court stated:

“Reasons of public policy, the preservation of the good image
of the judiciary, and avoidance of all appearances of impropriety, require that
a judge should hold office at the regular place of business of the court and
not at his residence. A judge holding office in his house makes himself open to
suspicion and possible criticism that his official actuations cannot bear
public scrutiny, more particularly of his co-officials in the local government.
All these would have deterred respondent from the course of action he had taken
had he possessed some sense of decorum and good judgment.”

With his aforementioned admission, disciplinary sanction against
Judge Mabutas is inevitable. There is, however, no
evidence as to the number of times he had actually stayed in his residence
during office hours for the period beginning from 16 July to October 1987 to
make him liable for absenteeism or tardiness. Accordingly, he can only be held
to account for the violation of the above Circular No. 13 dated 1 July 1987. A fine of P2,000.00 would be an appropriate penalty.

WHEREFORE, judgment is
hereby rendered:

(1) In ADM. MATTER No. MTJ-88-142,
DISMISSING, for lack of merit, the complaint for oppression, abuse of position
and conduct unbecoming of a judge against respondent JUDGE RODOLFO A. MABUTAS,
but finding him GUILTY of violating Circular No. 13 of 1 July 1987 and
sentencing him to pay a fine of P2,000.00 with a
warning that a repetition of the same act would be dealt with severely.

(2) In ADM. MATTER No. P-89-291, finding respondent ERLINDA A.
MENDOZA guilty of neglect of duty, inefficiency, frequent unauthorized absences
and for gallivanting during office hours, and SUSPENDING her from the service
for a period of three (3) months, without pay, commencing on the day
immediately following her receipt of a copy of this Decision, with a warning
that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with severely. The
period of suspension shall not be chargeable against her leave credits.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., Romero, and Melo, JJ., concur.