ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[OCA IPI No. 04-1947-P. March 16, 2005]

PUNZALAN vs. SAQUILAYAN

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 16 2005.

OCA IPI No. 04-1947-P (Atty. Gabina Punsalan vs. Loida S. Saquilayan, Court Legal Researcher.)

A complaint-affidavit dated 27 May 2004 was filed by Gabina Punsalan (Punsalan) against Loida S. Saquilayan (respondent), Legal Researcher II, RTC, Branch 89, Bacoor, Cavite, for Conduct Unbecoming of Court Employee. Respondent allegedly induced accused Liberty Soriano (Soriano), Punsalan's client, to terminate the legal services of Punsalan and assisted Soriano in hiring the services of "another" lawyer, and engaged in the solicitation of bail bonds.

Punsalan claimed that as administrator of a law office, she gave assistance to indigent clients. One of her clients was Soriano who eventually terminated her legal services because respondent allegedly told Soriano in the vernacular: "Namemera yan si Punsalan! Bibigyan kita ng abogado kunin mo ang binigay mo na pera sa kanya total binabayaran ninyo naman ang bawat gawin nila sa papel."

Punsalan likewise alleged that respondent was engaged in soliciting bail bonds from litigants. According to Punsalan, her secretary saw one of their clients whose case was pending in Branch 19, RTC, Bacoor, Cavite, pay her bail bond "beyond the knowledge of respondent."

Respondent, however, denied the allegations of Punsalan. Being the OIC/Acting Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 89, one of her duties is to check all records before being brought inside the chamber of Judge Israel Tanguanco for the latter's signature. She narrated that sometime in May 2004, someone handed to her a bail bond of Soriano for approval of Judge Tanguanco. Upon checking the papers, she noticed the picture of Soriano whom she remembered to be her former neighbor and a schoolmate. She thus asked the husband of Soriano about the charges leveled against her. In the course of their conversation, respondent inquired who their lawyer was. When told that it was Punsalan, respondent reacted saying "Lawyer na pala si Cabinet, nakasabay ko siyang nag-law sa Lyceum. Matagal ko na rin syang di nakikita mula ng ma-transfer kami from Imus." The husband then asked her where to inquire whether a certain person is indeed a lawyer. She answered that it is with the Supreme Court.

Respondent contended that the complaint filed against her by Punsalan was meant to harass her because she was the one who furnished Soriano's husband information where to verify whether Punsalan was a lawyer or not.

Anent the alleged solicitation of bail bonds from litigants, respondent submitted the following to refute the charges, namely: the Affidavit of Leonardo Cuaderno, representative of Summit Guaranty and Insurance Company, Inc. (bondsman of accused Soriano); the Affidavit of Rosalie Danganan, employee of the Prosecutor's Office, Bacoor, Cavite; and Joint Affidavit of Florentina Cruz, Joie Pangan, Marilou Camitan, Angelito Elca, Anita Pacariem, Glenda Santos, Edwin Geronimo, Mercedes Cuenca and Rodolfo Velasquez, all employees of RTC, Branch 89, Bacoor, Cavite. Their affidavits corroborated the denial of respondent.

In sum, the affidavits adduced by respondent's witnesses revealed that respondent did not process the bail bonds of Soriano and her co-accused. It was Cuaderno, the representative of Summit Guaranty and Insurance Company, Inc., who facilitated the issuance of the bond of the accused. Respondent also alleged that she had nothing to do with the action filed by Soriano's co-accused, namely: Antonette Zabala, Geebeth Esteban, James Anis and Alicia Crisostomo, against Punsalan before the NBI for extracting from them money for her acceptance and appearance fees when in truth she is not a member of the bar.

After evaluating the evidence on record, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the dismissal of the complaint filed by Punsalan for lack of merit. It ruled that regarding the charge that respondent induced Soriano to terminate Punsalan's legal services and assisted Soriano in hiring the services of a legitimate lawyer, the OCA gave credence to the disclaimer of respondent. The affidavits and other documents submitted by Punsalan contain matters that are irrelevant and immaterial to this case and even render her accusations incredible. On the other hand, respondent adduced convincing evidence in her favor. Thus, the quantum of proof needed to sustain an administrative case against a court employee which should be substantial evidence was not met. Besides, Punsalan herself is not credible. She had represented herself as a legal practitioner when in truth and in fact she is not a lawyer, as certified to by the Office of the Bar Confidant.

Finding the recommendation of the OCA to be in accord with the law and the evidence, the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE