Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > November 2007 Resolutions > [OCA IPI. No. 07-2588-P : November 21, 2007] JUDGE ADORATION G. ANGELES V. MA. TERESA M. NEGRILLO, COURT STENOGRAPHER :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 21 November 2007:

OCA IPI. No. 07-2588-P (Judge Adoration G. Angeles v. Ma. Teresa M. Negrillo, Court Stenographer). � In a Complaint dated 22 December 2005, Judge Adoracion Angeles, representing the Regional Trial Court Branch 121 of Caloocan City, charged respondent Ma. Teresa M. Negrillo with Falsification of Public Document, Violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) and Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713) in relation to anomalous conduct and transactions in the discharge of her official duties as stenographer in the said court.

Complainant initially filed the instant administrative complaint which the Office of the Ombudsman. On 11 August 2006, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received the complaint by way of an Endorsement from the Ombudsman dated 4 August 2006.

Upon receipt of respondent's Counter-Affidavit^[1] dated 29 September 2006 and complainant's Reply^[2] dated 4 October 2006, the OCA issued its Report dated 24 September 2007. The OCA's evaluation of the case and its recommended action are quoted below:

EVALUATION: Complainant primarily accuses respondent of anomalously falsifying the date of the decision in Criminal Case No. C-54365 (People v. Bega Ramos) by deliberately typing the wrong date "February 27, 2005" instead of "March 29, 2005" as she allegedly instructed.

In support of the charges leveled against respondent-stenographer, complainant presented photocopies of the court's logbook of disposed cases for March 2005, the March 2005 Monthly Report submitted to the Supreme Court and the Certification dated October 28, 2005 issued by Ms. Leonila Ag. Dangle, Chief, Criminal Cases Section, Court of Appeals, certifying that there appears a handwritten notation "Date Decided March 29, 2005" on the expediente cover of Criminal Case No. C-54365 (PP v. Bega Ramos).

Complainant emphasized that the first hard copy of the decision which was initially shown to her was dated March 29. 2005. After perusing said hard copy, she gave the same to respondent stenographer and instructed her to print more copies of the decision for her signature. However, photocopies of the questioned decision, attached by the parties to their respective pleadings and duly certified by Ms. Charmane F. Del Rosario, Officer-in-Charge of RTC Br. 121, Caloocan City, would show that said decision is dated "February 27, 2007." Apparently, the Decision attached to the records of Criminal Case No. 54365, rendered and duly signed by complainant is actually dated February 27, 2005.

As aptly pointed out by the respondent, complainant who read the decision before signing the same and entered the notation "March 29, 2005" in the expediente cover never saw the discrepancy or error in the date of the decision. Neither did the court interpreter who read the entire decision during its promulgation or the Officer-in-Charge, Ms. Charmane Del Rosario and the staff who prepared the monthly report for March 2005 and the list of disposed cases nor the staff in charge for records of criminal cases who likewise handled the records of the case ever realized that the Decision is dated February 27, 2005 and not March 29, 2005 as indicated in the notation of complainant in the expediente cover. Yet, despite the fact that the Decision attached to the records of Criminal Case No. C-54265 is dated February 27, 2005, surprisingly, the list of disposed cases and the Monthly Report for March 2005 show that said Decision is dated "March 29, 2005." Be that as it may, respondent-stenographer cannot be held responsible for the discrepancy in the date of the decision of Criminal Case No. C-54365. Moreso, the documents presented by complainant does not prove that respondent deliberately disobeyed complainant's instructions; and anomalously dated the decision "February 27, 2005" instead of "March 29, 2005" as instructed.

Respondent however, should be admonished and sternly warned for borrowing money from a party-litigant. It is not disputed that she contracted a personal loan of P1,000.00 from Dr. Zatarain, a party litigant who has a pending case in their sala sometime in September 2005 which she immediately paid that very same month and before complainant even filed the instant administrative case against her. Nonetheless, it bears stressing that the conduct of respondent, as an employee of the judiciary, must at all times, be characterized by propriety and decorum. The image of the court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise of the personnel who work thereat. Thus, the conduct of a person serving the judiciary must, at all times, be characterized by propriety and decorum and above all else, be above suspicion so as to earn and keep the respect of the public for the judiciary. (Prak v. Anacan, 434 SCAR 110).

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court with the recommendation that respondent Ma. Teresa M. Negrillo be ADMONISHED for borrowing money from a party-litigant with STERN WARNING that future similar violations will be dealt with more severely. All the other charges should be dismissed for lack of basis.

Finding the OCA's evaluation and recommendation to be well-founded, the Court hereby adopts and approves the same. Accordingly, all charges against respondent Ma. Teresa M. Negrillo are DISMISSED for lack of basis except that she is hereby ADMONISHED for borrowing money from a party-litigant, with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely. Velasco, Jr., J, on official leave.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 19.

^[2] Rollo, not paginated.