ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA-IPI No. 06-2366-P. July 12, 2006]

MARIO NERI DEL PUERTO v. MAVEN LLOREN ARA�A, COURT STENOGRAPHER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, MAGSAYSAY, MISAMIS ORIENTAL

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 12, 2006 .

A.M. OCA-IPI No. 06-2366-P (Mario Neri del Puerto v. Maven Lloren Ara�a, Court Stenographer, Municipal Trial Court, Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental)

This treats of the verified Administrative Complaint [1] cralaw dated December 31, 2005 filed by Mario Neri del Puerto, charging Maven Lloren Ara�a, Court Stenographer, Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental, with Misconduct, Obstruction of Justice and Illegal Law Practice, Dishonesty or Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents, and Grave Oral Defamation.

Complainant alleges that respondent, using her position as Court Stenographer, wrote the Chief of Police of Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental, who also acted as the Public Prosecutor of the municipality, urging the latter to file a motion to dismiss seven (7) criminal cases then pending before the MTC. She also allegedly caused the retraction of the testimonies of complainant's witnesses through threats and intimidation.

He further claims that in the afternoon of April 14, 2005, respondent did not report for work but was able to collect her full salary by falsifying her daily time record. The same thing allegedly happened on December 6, 2005.

Complainant also avers that during office hours on April 14, 2005, respondent defamed and dishonored him as she also previously did to the incumbent mayor of Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental. He allegedly filed criminal complaints for oral defamation against respondent as a consequence.

Respondent claims in her Comment [2] cralaw dated March 2, 2006 that complainant's allegations are baseless. According to her, she wrote a letter to the Chief of Police on behalf of her less educated relatives and only to inform the Chief of Police that complainant's witnesses have already executed affidavits of desistance in the criminal cases for which reason, the cases should be dismissed. She asserts that she did not thereby engage in the unauthorized practice of law.

As regards the charge of Dishonesty or Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents, respondent insists that she reported for work on April 14, 2005 and December 6, 2005. To prove this, she attached to her Comment a copy of her duly certified daily time record (DTR) and the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) she took on December 6, 2005.

Respondent further avers that the charges of Oral Defamation are already pending before the MTC of Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental.

Complainant filed a Reply [3] cralaw dated April 10, 2006, reiterating his allegations.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommends the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. According to the OCA, there is no showing of bad faith on the part of respondent when she wrote the Chief of Police to inform the latter of the affidavits of desistance which complainant's witnesses executed. Respondent's actions do not constitute Illegal Practice of Law.

The OCA found the charge of Dishonesty or Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents unsubstantiated by evidence. On the other hand, the charges of Oral Defamation already pending before the MTC should be allowed to proceed.

We agree with the recommendation of the OCA.

Complainant failed to show that respondent was motivated by a desire to take advantage of her office when she wrote the Chief of Police. She did so in her personal capacity and only to help her relatives as evidenced by the fact that she did not even indicate in the letter that she is a Court Stenographer but merely that she is the "Representative of the Plaintiffs de la Camara in Civil Cases and Defense in Criminal Cases." [4] cralaw Respondent's letter appears more like a mere transmittal of the affidavits of desistance with a request that the criminal cases be dropped. This hardly qualifies as illegal practice of law.

We note, moreover, that the DTR submitted by respondent to prove that she reported for work on April 14, 2005 was duly verified and certified by the clerk of court. The TSN and transcribed notes taken by respondent on December 6, 2005 were also certified by the clerk of court. Such certifications should be accorded full faith and credit in the absence of more credible evidence showing that respondent was indeed absent on the days complainant claims she was.

As regards the charge of oral defamation, the present administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy to seek redress especially as another judicial avenue is available and has, in fact, been taken advantage of. [5] cralaw

WHEREFORE, the instant Complaint is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 1-28.

[2] cralaw Id. at 30-35.

[3] cralaw Id. at 75-76.

[4] cralaw Id. at 4, Annex "A" of the Complaint.

[5] cralaw Santos v. Orlino, 296 SCRA 101, September 25, 1998.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com