Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > March 2008 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-08-2438 [Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2623-P] : March 12, 2008] JUDGE GEORGINA D. HIDALGO V. AUREA D. DELA FUENTE, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, RTC, BRANCH 39, LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 12 March�2008: A.M. No. P-08-2438 [Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2623-P] (Judge Georgina D. Hidalgo v. Aurea D. Dela Fuente, Court Stenographer III, RTC, Branch 39, Lingayen, Pangasinan) In this administrative complaint, Judge Georgina D. Hidalgo, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68 in Lingayen, Pangasinan, charges Court Stenographer III Aurea Dela Fuente, of the RTC, Branch 39, also in Lingayen, with Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Violation of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. According to Judge Hidalgo, on May 5, 2007, she had decided Civil Case No. L-17841, a case for declaration of nullity of marriage. She narrated that sometime in July 2007, Corazon Malicdem, an employee in Branch 39, informed her that the petitioner in the said case, Lilaine Ayeras Vargas, arrived at the court, and had complained to Malicdem. Vargas said that she and stenographer Dela Fuente, herein respondent, had agreed that Dela Fuente was going to return the money Vargas had given Dela Fuente for Judge Hidalgo, but Dela Fuente had not done so. Bothered by the report of Malicdem, Judge Hidalgo inquired around and found out from another employee, Yolanda Reintar, that Dela Fuente had approached Reintar about the case and asked Reintar to antedate the receipt of a motion for reconsideration filed by Vargas' lawyer. When confronted, Dela Fuente admitted that she knew and had indeed helped vargas. She, however, denied receiving money from Vargas. In the presence of Malicdem and Reintar, Dela Fuente admitted she had Reintar antedate the aforementioned motion for reconsideration. Dela Fuente vowed she was going to bring Vargas to court to attest she received no money from Vargas, but efforts to contact Vargas proved futile since she had already left for Korea. Unsurprisingly, Dela Fuente eventually admitted accepting PhP50,000 from Vargas but denied ever used Judge Hidalgo's name in her dealings with Vargas. After another confrontation, Dela Fuente explained that she had actually borrowed USD 100 from Vargas' relative and had already returned PhP35,000. With these pieces of information, Judge Hidalgo prepared to press charges against Dela Fuente but Dela Fuente offered to resign. Dela Fuente did not. She instead requested to be detailed in a Manila court. Thereafter, in a Memorandum, Deputy Court Administrator Reuben P. De la Cruz reported that Judge Hidalgo received threats on her life after she decided to file an administrative complaint against Dela Fuente. Dela Fuente vehemently denied the accusation against her and explained that she met Vargas thru a friend's brother who had approached her for help in getting the services of a lawyer. Since Vargas was already in Korea, the brother was attending to Vargas' case. After finding a new lawyer for Vargas' case, Dela Fuente said that the lawyer and Vargas' brother entrusted her, for safekeeping, PhP50,000 meant for legal expenses. Dela Fuente claimed that the new lawyer, Atty. fernandez, asked to see the records of Vargas' case, and since Atty. Fernandez only had two days to prepare the motion for reconsideration, Atty. Fernandez instructed her to return the money to Vargas' brother who in turn asked her to keep the m oney for a few more weeks, which she did. Dela Fuente said that there was no instance when she used the name of Judge Hidalgo whose reputation for integrity and honesty was well known. She vehemently denied having anything to do with the threats on Judge Hidalgo's life. After investigation and evaluation of the affidavits, testimonies, admissions, and circumstances surrounding the complaint, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reported that Dela Fuentes' interest in the case of Vargas was unusually irregular. Although she was not a member of Judge Hidalgo's staff in Branch 68, Dela Fuente took active interest in the case to the extent of having a receipt of a motion for reconsideration antedated. The OCA noted that what was more disturbing was that money was involved, and Dela Fuente's explanation of why and how the money was in her custody was unconvincing and uncorroborated. Hence, the OCA recommend that Dela Fuente be found guilty of simple misconduct and accordingly be suspended from the serveice for a period of six (6) months. We agree with the OCA that respondent Dela Fuente;s behavior and actuations are suspect and from her very own admissions constitute simple misconduct, a less grave offonse that deserve to be meted a suspension of six (6) months. Court employees are not prohibited from helping individuals in the course of their official duties, but, when the help extended puts under suspicion the integrity of the judiciary, the actions of the court employee cannot be left unchecked. Court employees are strictly instructed not to interfere, meddle, nor intercede in behalf of any party litigants precisely to free court personnel from suspicion of any misconduct. Section 1, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct Personnel expressly prohibits court personnel from using their position to secure unwarranted benefits, privileges, or exemption for themselves or for others.^[1] WHEREFORE, this Court hereby finds AUREA D. DELA FUENTE, Court Stenographer III of the RTC, Branch 39, in Lingayen, Pangasinan, GUILTY of Simple Misconduct and accordingly SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months. SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG Clerk of Court By: (Sgd.) MA. LUISA LAUREA Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Palabrica v. Faelnar, A.M. No. P-06-2205 (Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 05-2250-P), August 3, 2006, 497 SCRA 469, 478.