ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2221-P. March 20, 2006]

REBECCA B. MIRANDA v. CECILIA CRISS, UTILITY AIDE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43, MANILA

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated MAR. 20, 2006

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2221-P (Rebecca B. Miranda v. Cecilia Criss, Utility Aide, Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, em>Manila).

Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated January 5, 2006, to wit:

REASON FOR AGENDA : The following were received by the Office of the Court Administrator:

1. LETTER dated 25 May 2005 of Atty. Rolando B. Miranda transmitting the complaint-affidavit of his sister, Ms. Rebecca B. Miranda charging respondent with Grave Misconduct. Complainant is a Court Stenographer of RTC, Branch 3, Manila. She alleges that on 18 May 2005 while she was inside the Land Bank of the Philippines to encash her checks, respondent, who was also inside the bank, maliciously called her "POK POK ," a vernacular word for prostitute, unchaste woman, or woman of ill repute. After respondent uttered the said words, she and her companion, a certain Joey, laughed with derision. The utterances were made in the presence of many persons and without any provocation.

2. COMMENT dated 26 July 2005 of respondent vehemently denying the allegations in the complaint. She narrates that on 18 May 2005, she had gone to the bank to encash some checks and chanced upon an officemate, Joselito Gallos, who was about two or three persons behind her on the line going to the teller's window. She admits that from time to time she looked back at Mr. Gallos and made some funny gestures which elicited laughter from both of them. She denies, however that the gestures were directed to herein complainant. In fact, it was only later that (sic) she noticed that complainant was also on the line.

Respondent explains that the gestures were innocent and were not directed to anybody in particular. She adds that she was just happy during that day because of the two (2) checks they received. She stresses that neither the word "POK POK " nor other slanderous remarks were uttered. If indeed she uttered those words it would have created a scandal since there were many court employees present. Significantly, complainant ignored the alleged remarks since she did not even react to it. Respondent likewise denies complainant's accusation that she would utter slanderous remarks such as "malandi , puta [,] or pok pok " towards her everytime their paths would cross.

The enmity between them apparently started during their office Christmas party (sic) on December 1989 when respondent caught her husband and herein complainant dancing in a very tight embrace. Although jealous, she did not confront the two (2) because she realized that they were probably intoxicated and just got carried away. After the incident, she would look at complainant with disgust whenever they would meet but she never uttered scurrilous remarks against her even though she believes that a woman should never conduct herself in such manner specially with a married man. However, after the lapse of time the ill feelings against complainant subsided, she just ignores her whenever they meet.

3. REPLY dated 02 August 2005 of complainant pointing out that by her own words, respondent admitted that she felt insulted and got jealous when she saw her husband and complainant in a "compromising situation"[,] and that she harbored ill feelings towards herein complainant. These would show that respondent is indeed mad at complainant[,] and that she expressed her anger by hurling insulting, offensive and slanderous remarks at the latter without regard as to the time, place and occasion, the latest of which was the incident at Landbank as narrated in the complaint. Moreover, her disclosure that she was making funny gestures to Joselito Gallos and that they would laugh from time to time in fact, lend credence to complainant's allegation.

It is not true that respondent's hatred against complainant has already subsided because she continuously exhibited a belligerent attitude towards the latter.

If ever no scandal erupted during the incident complained of, it was because complainant restrained herself from confronting respondent even as she was already agitated and starting to shed tears of embarrassment and disgust as she has always done in the previous incidents that she came across respondent.

4. REJOINDER dated 08 August 2005 of respondent denying the allegations of complainant in her reply. Respondent avers that she was able to let the incident on December 1998 pass without confronting complainant so there was no reason for her to utter malicious remarks against the latter. She insists that the allegations in the complaint are all fictitious and malicious driven by complainant's jealousy over respondent's husband. Respondent adds that she has no time to indulge in such malicious activities as alleged by complainant for her time is solely devoted to her work and her family.

Respondent likewise observes that the bank's security personnel never reported any untoward incident which transpired as alleged by the complainant. There was only the police blotter as reported by the complainant five (5) hours after the alleged incident took place. Respondent questions complainant's motive for complaining on this particular incident but failing to allege the other incidents where respondent was said to have maligned her.

EVALUATION : It is surprising that none of their co-employees who were also at the bank to encash their checks corroborated complainant's allegations. In administrative cases, it is essential that the complaint should at least establish a prima facie case.

The charge of misconduct arising from a fishwives' quarrel occasioned by [an] alleged misconduct of the complainant does not deserve the time spent in investigating them.

RECOMMENDATION : Respectfully submitted to the Honorable Court our recommendation that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The Court agrees with the foregoing recommendation.

It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of substantiating the charges asseverated in the complaint falls on the complainant. [1] cralaw The allegations in the complaint must be proven with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his or her duties will prevail. For a court employee to be held administratively liable, the evidence against him or her should be competent and derived from direct knowledge. [2] cralaw

The Court has not hesitated to discipline court personnel who are found guilty of violations of the law. But it has likewise not hesitated to exonerate them whenever it finds the charges to be without basis. [3] cralaw

Considering the foregoing, the Court resolves to DISMISS the case against Cecilia Criss.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Cortes v. Judge Agcaoili , 355 Phil. 848, 880 (1998).

[2] cralaw Sierra v. Judge Tiamson , A.M. No. RTJ-04-1847, July 21, 2004, 434 SCRA 560, 563.

[3] cralaw Alfonso v. Ignacio, A.M. No. P-02-1557, December 8, 2004, 445 SCRA 493, 499.


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