Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > May 2011 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-04-1787 : May 31, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. MAURA D. CAMPANO, CLERK OF COURT, MTC, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO; NESTOR ROBLES, CLERK OF COURT, MCTC, MAGSAYSAY-RIZAL-CALINTAAN, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO; AND YOLANDA A. BONUS, INTERPRETER I, MCTC, MAGSAYSAY-RIZAL-CALINTAAN, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO [A.M. NO. P-05-1980. MAY 31, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. EREALY D. MIRANDA, OIC, MTC, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated May 31, 2011 which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. P-04-1787 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Maura D. Campano, Clerk of Court, MTC, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro; Nestor Robles, Clerk of Court, MCTC, Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro; and Yolanda A. Bonus, Interpreter I, MCTC, Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro) and A.M. No. P-05-1980 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Erealy D. Miranda, OIC, MTC, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro). 

RESOLUTION 

What is the extent of administrative liability of accountable court employees who may have been coerced by the sitting judge to tamper with court records on collection and lend the latter certain amounts on various occasions? 

The Facts and the Cases 

These cases relate to irregularities in the separate books of account of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, from August 1993 to August 31, 2002 and of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro, from October 1995 to September 30, 2002.^[1]

The team from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) which conducted a financial audit of the books on September 16, 2002 made the following recommendations:

1. That the matters be treated and docketed as an administrative complaint against a) Maura D. Campano (Campano), Clerk of Court of the San Jose MTC; b) Nestor Robles (Robles), Clerk of Court of the Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan MCTC; and c) Yolanda A. Bonus (Bonus), Interpreter I, who took over Robles' collection duties when he was attending to cases;

2. That the matters be referred to the Regional Trial Court Executive Judge (EJ) of San Jose for investigation, report, and recommendation within 30 days from the receipt of the explanations of Campano, Robles, and Bonus.^[2]

The Court adopted the recommendation and directed the three respondents to explain their respective court's unremitted collection, incomplete entries in the financial records, and other irregularities that apparently indicate misappropriations of court funds.^[3]

During the time that Campano was under preventive suspension, EJ Ernesto Pagayatan designated a court clerk as accountable officer. But, because of Campano's continued interference with the work and some pressure from Judge Josefino A. Garillo, then acting presiding judge of the San Jose MTC and concurrently the presiding judge of the Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan MCTC, the designated court clerk hesitated in taking responsibility. Thus, EJ Pagayatan asked Socorro Gorospe (Gorospe) to take over the work in September 2002. On April 13, 2003, however, MTC Judge Garillo revoked Gorospe's appointment and, in her place, asked Court Stenographer I Erealy D. Miranda (Miranda) to take over. The audit team would later report that their audit covered the accountabilities of both Gorospe and Miranda.^[4]

The investigation revealed that Judge Garillo borrowed money from the judiciary funds and instructed the court personnel involved to tamper with the records. For example, to cover-up the shortages occasioned by Garillo's non-remittance of cash bonds he personally received, the latter asked Bonus to use the official receipts pertaining to the Judiciary Development Fund collection, although both knew that a separate booklet of receipts covered collections for the Fiduciary Fund. Also, at times, Garillo would ask either Robles or Bonus to put on the receipt the minimal amount of P10.00 or P20.00 rather than the actual amount that the bondsmen paid.^[5] At a later date, Robles^[6] and Bonus^[7]  said in their affidavits that Garillo also never once handed over the fees he received for officiating weddings.

Campano of San Jose MTC had similar experiences. She said that Garillo borrowed money from the Fiduciary Fund collection. She felt constrained to hand over the money because he was insistent. Because of anxiety, Campano was unable to produce the receipts immediately after the audit team asked for them. She added that, through inadvertence, what she submitted was incomplete. It was out of sheer ignorance that she came to work after he was suspended. Campano asked for time to restitute her collection shortages.^[8]

Apart from Garillo's misappropriations, the court personnel mentioned that he committed extortions as well. He signed court orders only after receiving payments for them. Further, he would take out forced loans from the court employees' salaries and benefits. The court personnel said that Garillo did these things because he betted heavily in derbies and in illegal gambling.^[9]

Asked to answer the accusations against him, Garillo admitted in his compliance of June 14, 2004 that he borrowed a total of P70,000.00 from the collections of Campano and Robles. But, according to him, he already returned the amount. He said that he was in dire financial need because of his failing health and that he had no one to turn to for help.^[10]

On July 27, 2004 the Court referred the matter to the OCA for evaluation, report, and recommendation.^[11] Acting on such report and recommendation, the Court resolved on March 8, 2005, as follows; 

I. DOCKET the report on the examination of the books of accounts of the MTC, San Jose, MCTC, Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan and RTC, San Jose, all of the Province of Occidental Mindoro, as A.M. No. P-05-I980 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Erealy D. Miranda, Officer- in-Charge, MTC, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro); 

II. CONSOLIDATE A.M. P-05-1980 with this administrative complaint (A.M. No. P-04-1787); 

III. DIRECT former Judge Josefino A. Garillo, to do the following acts within thirty (30) days from notice hereof, unless otherwise specified: 

A. PAY and DEPOSIT to the

1. Fiduciary Fund Account the total amount of Eight-One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P81,500.00), representing the following Cash Bond personally received from the bondsmen:

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

DATE	O.R. USED	CASE No.	PAYEE	AMOUNT
06/29/98	JDF OR No.   8689142   P20.00	R-295	Fely Camandang	24,000.00
09/6/98	JDF OR No.   4427673   P20.00	R-176	Rhodora Talactac	12,500.00
11/3/98	JDF OR No.   8689228   P10.00	M-1725	Jose Villa, Jr.	25,000.00
03/24/99	JDF OR No.   8689315   P20.000.00	M-1762	Juan Tibayan. Jr.	20,000.00
TOTAL   �				P81,500.00 ========

�

  2. Judiciary Development Fund the following unreceipted collection of marriage solemnization fee totaling to Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000);

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

MCTC RIZAL-CALINTAAN-MAGSAYSAY
DATE	REG. No.	PARTIES	AMOUNT
06/03/02	189-02	Barrios-Tariga	P300.00
06/03/02	189-02	Barrios-Tariga	300.00
06/03/02	189-02	Barrios-Tariga	300.00   ---------
TOTAL			P 900.00 ======

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

MTC SAN JOSE
DATE	REG. No.	PARTIES	AMOUNT
4/26/03	2003-293	Eric Ballezu Jr./   Jenefer Maulces	P 300.00
4/28/03	2003-294	Oliver Santos/ Elizabeth Flores	300.00
5/7/03	2003-314	Nelbert Villar/   Ma. Fe del Rosario	300.00
5/28/03	2003-423	Osward Torrelino/   Donna delo Santos	300.00
7/10/03	2003-574	Wilfredo delos Santos/   Imee Nacilla	300.00
8/30/03	2003-655	Michael Tuba/   Juvelin Domingo	300.00
8/30/03	2003-656	Reynaldo Montenegro/   Nay Tuba	300.00
TOTAL			P 2,100.00   ========

�

B. EXPLAIN, within fifteen (15) days from notice hereof, why he directed respondent Yolanda A. Bonus, Interpreter I, MCTC, Magsaysay-Rizai-Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro, to tamper the amounts in the duplicate and triplicate copies of the first three (3) Official Receipts above, i.e., 8689142, 4427673, and 8689228, to make it appear in the report that no cash bonds were received; 

C. PRODUCE the Affidavit of Desistance executed by the accused m Criminal Case No. 10826 where he based the order of dismissal; and 

D. EXPLAIN, within fifteen (15) days from notice hereof, why he allowed the release of the accused in the following criminal cases below without posting the required bond upon request of certain personalities:

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

Criminal Case No.	Crime Committed	Name of   the Accused	Harbouring Personality
1742	Direct Assault Upon Person in Authority	Angel Morales	Vice Mayor Hernando D. Aban
1725	Robbery with Intimidation   Upon Person	Jose Villa, Jr.	Mayor Marleo R. Barrera
1865	Qualified Theft	Eddie Malaluan	Councilor Remedios V. Bonilla
1797-1798	Attempted Homicide	Danilo G. Ancheta	Mayor Cesar M. Tria, Jr.
1619	Attempted Homicide	Paterno Tecson	Mayor Cesar M. Tria, Jr.

�

IV. DIRECT respondent Maura D. Campano to do the following acts within thirty (30) days from notice hereof:

A. PAY and DEPOSIT  to the 

1. Fiduciary Fund Account the total shortages incurred amounting to Six Hundred Sixty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Six Pesos and Thirty Centavos (P668,886.30);
    
2. Judiciary Development Fund the total shortages incurred amounting to Four Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Five Pesos (P4,455);
    
3. General Fund the total shortages incurred amounting to Ten Thousand Sixty-Nine Pesos and 10/100 (P10,069.10); 

B. SUBMIT to the Fiscal Monitoring Division the corresponding validated deposit slips as proof of remittance for the shortages mentioned above; 

C. ACCOUNT for all the missing documents, i.e. official receipts, monthly reports, and cashbooks, pertaining to her accountabilities covering the period of August 1993 to August 2002; and 

D. EXPLAIN

1. why she allowed the following Surety Bond Companies to transact business with the court even with an expired Certification from the Supreme Court:

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

CC#	Surety Bond   Company	Date of   Surety Bond	Expiration date   of SC* Certification Attached
11175	PGIC**	2/26/2003	2/9/2003
11017	PGIC**	7/5/2000	6/30/2000
11582	PGIC**	12/17/2002	12/10/2002
11617	PGIC**	2/17/2003	2/9/2003
11345	PGIC**	1/21/2002	1/14/2002
11670	PGIC**	5/28/2003	2/9/2003
11671
11680
11681
11915	PGIC**	9/4/2004	6/30/2004

�

2. why the case of Zaldy Culla for the crime of Grave Threat was not docketed and instead assigned Criminal Case No. 10883-A which was also the case number assigned to accused Danilo Gamboa and Jocelyn Centeno for the crime of Concubinage; 

3. why there was no Official Receipt issued for the cash bond posted in Criminal Case No. 10748; and 

4. why confiscated bet money for Criminal Case No. 10788 in the amount of Four Hundred Seventeen Pesos (P417.00) was not remitted to the General Fund, as well as the whereabouts of the said amount;

V. DIRECT respondent Nestor S. Robles to do the following acts within thirty (30) days from notice hereof:

A. EXPLAIN why only the amount of Thirty-Six Thousand Pesos (P36,000.00) was deposited to the Fiduciary Fund Account and not the whole amount received from respondent Judge Garillo representing the latter's payment of the balance allegedly borrowed from MCTC's collection, amounting to Seventy-Nine Thousand Pesos (P79,000.00); 

B. STRICTLY COMPLY with OCA Circular No. 100-2004 dated 27 August 2004, directing the opening of Time Deposit Accounts with the Land Bank of the Philippines for all Fiduciary Fund Deposits below One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00); and 

C. SUBMIT to the Fiscal Monitoring Division the supporting documents to prove compliance with the foregoing directive;

VI. DIRECT Acting Clerk of Court Erealy D. Miranda to do the following acts following within thirty (30) days from notice hereof, unless otherwise specified:

A. EXPLAIN, within fifteen (15) days from notice hereof, why she cannot be subjected to disciplinary action for receiving Eight Thousand Pesos (P8,000.00) for Civil Case Nos. 1549-1557 from one Mercedes L. Cruz, representative of a religious organization engaged in aiding financial assistance to the local residents of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, i.e. Apostolic Vicariate of San Jose Livelihood Movement, Inc., which was more than the prescribed legal fees and for not issuing and Official Receipt related thereto; and 

B. SUBMIT to the Fiscal Monitoring Division the deposit slips pertaining to the remittance made in the month of March 2003 amounting to Seven Hundred Eighty-Two Pesos (P782.00);

VII. REVOKE the designation of Ms. Miranda as Acting Clerk of Court of MTC, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro; 

VIII. DESIGNATE Ms. Socorro G. Gorospe, Court Interpreter I, as Officer-in-Charge of MTC, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, effective immediately; 

IX. DIRECT Ms. Gorospe to do the following acts within thirty (30) days from notice hereof;

A. COMPLY with OCA Circular No. 100-2004 dated 27 August 2004, directing the opening of Time Deposit Accounts with the Land Bank of the Philippines for all Fiduciary Fund Deposits below One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00); 

B. WITHDRAW the amount of One Thousand Twenty-One Pesos and 91/100 (P1,021.91) from the Fiduciary Fund Account, representing unwithdrawn net interest earned for the audit period, and DEPOSIT  the same to the Judiciary Development Fund; and 

C. SUBMIT to the Fiscal Monitoring Division the supporting documents to prove compliance with the foregoing directives; and 

X. DIRECT the Legal Office to file the corresponding criminal charges against former Judge Josefino A. Garillo.^[12]

On May 23, 2005 Miranda explained in her compliance that she only became aware of the existence of a commissioner's fee when the plaintiffs lawyer in the case in question gave her P8,000.00. And since the lawyer did not ask for receipt, she gave none. In his affidavit, the lawyer said that, in practice, he asks his clients to bear the costs of stenographic notes and commissioner's fee.^[13] On the matter of remittance for March 2003, Miranda said that Garillo appointed her as officer-in-charge only on April 14, 2003. Thus, she was not responsible for the turn over of funds for March.^[14].

The Issue Presented 

The issue presented in these cases is whether or not former Judge Garillo, Clerks of Court Campano (San Jose MTC) and Robles (Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan MCTC), acting Clerk of Court Miranda (San Jose MTC), and designated collecting officer Bonus (Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan MCTC) were guilty of gross neglect of duty and dishonesty or grave misconduct.

Rulings of the Court 

Sadly, it was the judge himself in this case who master-minded the mindless pilferage of court funds. And fully knowing that the judge was helping himself into the money, the court staff involved took no action to protect the court's interest. The Court cannot rule out the possibility that they were helping themselves, too, to that money.

Personal financial problems, however pressing, can never be a valid excuse for using court funds.^[15]  What is more abhorrent is that, according to court employees, Garillo did not, as he claimed, use the money for treatment or medication but for sustaining his gambling addiction. A testament to Garillo's dishonesty and gross misconduct is this Court's decision in another administrative case, imposing on him the ultimate penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leaves.^[16] Still, he must make a restitution of the court funds he illegally took and face prosecution for the crimes he apparently committed.

As regards the liabilities of Clerks of Courts Campano and Robles and in the latter's place, court interpreter Bonus, this Court cannot accept the uniform excuse that they proffer, namely, Garillo's persistence and official ascendance left them no choice but to let him dip his fingers into the court funds and, further, help him cover-up the paper trail of his illegal deeds. As accountable officers, the subordinate employees mentioned had the task of: 1) collecting the proper amount of fees from parties, counsels, or surety companies; 2) issuing original receipts for all amounts collected, and not merely furnish parties with photocopies;^[17] 3) taking all reasonable steps to minimize the risk of losses, defalcations, and other types of irregularities;^[18] and 4) immediately depositing collected amounts with the Land Bank of the Philippines.^[19] As custodians, it is thus logical that they are answerable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of those funds and properties.^[20] They cannot shift the blame to another person.

The dishonesty and gross neglect of Campano, Robles, and Bonus are intolerable. Under Rule IV, Section 52-A of the Civil Service Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, misappropriation or allowing it, tampering with or failing to issue official receipts, failing to submit accounting reports, and, in Campano's case, allowing surety bond companies with expired licenses to transact business with the court and taking with her financial documents that made it more difficult for the Audit Team to ascertain the amount of her liabilities, are grave offenses punishable by dismissal even when committed for the first time.^[21]

That these court employees did not initiate the misappropriation of court funds will not mitigate their liabilities. As the Court said in Office of the Court Administrator v. Bernardino,^[22] "the safekeeping of funds and collections is essential to an orderly administration of justice and no protestation of good faith can override the mandatory nature of the circulars designed to promote full accountability for government funds." The dismissal of these employees from the service is warranted. Campano passed away on May 8, 2009,^[23]  thus rendering useless any order to dismiss her. Still, all the benefits to which she would ordinarily be entitled shall be forfeited and the Court shall deduct her cash shortage of P668,886.30 from her accrued leave credits.

As regards Miranda's liability, for collecting exorbitant legal fees and not issuing official receipt, she had committed grave misconduct, which likewise calls for dismissal under Rule IV, Section 52-A of the Civil Service Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. We base our conclusion on the following observation of the OCA: 

Before the end of the audit engagement, one Mercedes L. Cruz, representative of Apostolic Vicariate of San Jose Livelihood Movement, Inc. arrived at the premises x x x and was complaining about the alleged extortion of a sum of money by incumbent OIG Erealy D. Miranda x x x for the processing of the case representing Commissioner's Fee and Stenographer's Fee. [They] x x x settled to reduce it down to Eight Thousand (P8,000.00) Pesos, x x x [OIC Miranda] just acknowledged the said amount by signing her name in the disbursement voucher of [the] Apostolic Vicariate x x x and put a note on its face that it represents Commissioner's Fee of P4,000.00 and Stenographer's Fee of P4,000.00. Administrative Circular No. 3-2000 [Rule 141], Sec. 10 provides that certified transcript of notes taken by stenographer shall be Six (P6.00) Pesos for each page x x x. [The] certified transcript of notes for Civil Cases Nos. 1549-1557 given by OIC Miranda x x x has only Nineteen (19) pages which would amount only to One Hundred Fourteen (P114.00) Pesos and not Four Thousand (P4,000.00) Pesos. For the Commissioner's fee, the writs of execution issued against the personal property of the defendants were not executed by the Sheriff x x x. [If] applied, x x x [the] commission fee [would be] P3,274 66^[24] x x x and must be issued with a corresponding official receipt xxx.^[25](Underscoring supplied)

In other words, instead of collecting P114.00 for the stenographic notes and P480.00 for the writ of execution fees or a total of only Five Hundred and Ninety-Four Pesos (P594.00), Miranda charged the party Eight Thousand Pesos (P8,000.00) or more than 16 times the amount and, even worse, failed to issue an official receipt for it. And by way of explanation, Miranda pleaded ignorance of the rules on fees and the fact that the lawyer did not ask for any receipt. Such excuses are unacceptable. She must thus give back to the party the amount of Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Six Pesos (P7,406.00) which is the difference between the amount that she asked and the fees stated in the rules.

WHEREFORE, this Court ORDERS former Judge Josefino A. Garillo to restitute the Eighty-Four Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P84,500.00) that he misappropriated and pay a fine of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00). Further, the Court DIRECTS the forfeiture of all his accrued leave credits, if any. Lastly, the Court ORDERS the OCA Legal Office to file the appropriate criminal cases against him.

The Court FINDS Maura D. Campano, Clerk of Court of the MTC San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, guilty of dishonesty and gross neglect of duty for failure to account and turn over documents under her custody, for failure to comply with the rules on depositing judiciary funds, and for misappropriation of funds totaling Six Hundred Sixty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty-Six Pesos and Thirty Centavos (P668,886.30). Towards the collection of the amount misappropriated, the Court ORDERS the OCA Finance Management Office to process the accrued leave credits of Campano, if there are any, dispensing with the usual documentary requirements so as to immediately apply the same to the shortage in the judiciary funds that Campano had been responsible for. In view of her death, dismissal has become moot and academic but the court nevertheless ORDERS the forfeiture of the rest of her benefits.

Further, this Court FINDS Nestor S. Robles, Clerk of Court of MCTC, Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro, and Yolanda A. Bonus, Interpreter I, MCTC, Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro, guilty of dishonesty and gross neglect of duty for misappropriation of funds, tampering with official receipts, and failure to comply with the rules on depositing judiciary funds. The Court ORDERS both DISMISSED  from the service and all their benefits FORFEITED, with the exception of accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in the government service.

Finally, this Court FINDS Erealy D. Miranda, designated Clerk of Court, MTC San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, guilty of gross misconduct for charging exorbitant legal fees and failing to issue official receipts. The Court DISMISSES  her from the service and FORFEITS all her benefits, with the exception of accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in the government service. Also, the Court ORDERS her to return to the Apostolic Vicariate of San Jose Livelihood Movement, Inc. the Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Six Pesos (P7,406.00) which is the difference between the amount that she asked of it and the fees stated in the rules.

The Court further Resolved to NOTE the Letter dated May 10, 2011 of Nestor S. Robles, Clerk of Court and Yolanda A. Bonus, Court Interpreter, both of 3^rd MCTC, Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro."

Nachura, J., on leave.
Del Castillo, J., on official leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, (AM. P-04-1787), p. 8.

^[2] Id. at 21. 

^[3] Id. at 24-28. Court En Banc Resolution dated February 24, 2004. 

^[4] A.M. P-05-1980. 

^[5] Rollo (A.M. P-04-1787), pp. 944, 952. 

^[6] Id. at 1121. 

^[7] Id. at 1122. 

^[8] Id. at 262-264, dated April 23, 2004. 

^[9] Id. at 401-404. 

^[10] Id. at 927. Garillo: Your Honor, on all those occasions when I borrowed money I was financially in distress, and need money due to my worsening health condition. I will probably sound hypocrite if 1 will not admit about my necessities in life. I am just a human being looking for solution to my problem, and I have no bad intention in borrowing, because I will return the same which I have already restored to the one concerned. I am a poor fellow and being a judge is the only source of my living, no other sources of income. 

^[11] Id. at 875. 

^[12] Id. at 1019-1024. 

^[13] Rollo (A.M. P-05-1980), pp. 17-18. 

^[14] Id. at 13-15. 

^[15] See Office of the Court Administrator v. Nacuray, A.M. No. P-03-1739, April 7, 2006, 486 SCRA 532, 540. 

^[16] Rollo (A.M. P-04-1787), pp. 1132-1140. 

^[17] SC Circular 26-97 dated May 5, 1997. 

^[18] SC Circular 22-94. 

^[19] Administrative Circular 3-2000, see also SC Circular 13-92 and SC Circular 5-93. 

^[20]  Rebong v. Tengco, A.M. No. P-07-2338, April 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 460, 469, citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Ramirez; 489 Phil. 262, 270 (2005); Office of the Court Administrator v. Bawalan, A.M. No. P-93-945, March 24, 1994, 231 SCRA 408, 411. 

^[21] See Office of the Court Administrator v. Banag, A.M. No. P-09-2638, December 7, 2010. 

^[22] 490 Phil. 500, 524 (2005), cited in Office of the Court Administrator v. Paduganan-Pe�aranda, A.M. No. P-07-2355, March 19, 2010, 616 SCRA 178, 188. 

^[23] Rollo (A.M. P-04-1787), p. 1170. 

^[24] See RULES OF COURT, Rule 141, Sec. 8(n). 

^[25] Rollo, (A.M. P-04-1787), pp. 1090-1091.