Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > December 2008 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-01-1513 : December 15, 2008] JUDGE LYLIHA I. ABELLA-AQUINO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, TUGUEGARAO, CAGAYAN V. ATTY. BLAISE G. SAMBOLLEDO, CLERK OF COURT V, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, TUGUEGARAO, CAGAYAN :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 15 December 2008:

RESOLUTION. A.M. No. P-01-1513 (Judge Lyliha I. Abella-Aquino, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Tuguegarao, Cagayan v. Atty. Blaise G. Sambolledo, Clerk of Court V, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Tuguegarao, Cagayan). - Did respondent commit insubordination when she sent to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) the subject letter-query dated February 2, 2002? Is she liable for discourtesy in the course of official duties? These are the issues to be resolved in this administrative case.

In her unsworn letter-complaint^[1] to the OCA dated September 20; 2000, Presiding Judge Lyliha L. Abella-Aquino (complainant), Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, charged her former Clerk of Court V, Atty. Blaise Sambolledo (respondent) with insubordination and discourtesy in the course of official duties.

Complainant alleged in her letter, among others, that respondent:

(a)	Refused to acknowledge the authority and powers of the Presiding Judge when respondent wrote the letter dated February 2, 2000 to the Supreme Court specifically questioning the powers and authority of the complainant over the staff which to complainant's mind was tantamount to insubordination; and
(b)	Was disrespectful to lawyers, to her subordinates, and in one instance, to a litigant.

Attached to the letter is the Joint Affidavit executed on September 28, 2000 by the majority of the employees in Branch 4 stating that respondent was utterly arrogant, discourteous, and disrespectful to them and even to lawyers and court users; subjected them to embarrassment, ridicule and indignity, unbecoming of a lawyer; and impossible to work and deal with. In addition, complainant informed the Court that respondent was on detail with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the same RTC and she requested that respondent be permanently removed from Branch 4.

Respondent filed her Comment^[2] stressing that the purpose of her letter-query to the, OCA was merely to inquire about the extent of her authority to supervise her staff. Hence, she claimed that her letter-query could not be considered as an act of insubordination.   She also denied the charge of discourtesy and submitted the affidavits of some lawyers attesting to her integrity and good character.

Upon recommendation of the OCA, on September 5, 2001, the Court referred this case to the Executive Judge of RTC, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, for Investigation, Report and Recommendation (IRR).

Executive Judge Antonio N. Laggui, RTC, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, conducted the investigation in this case from July 22, 2002 until January 9, 2004. However, on February 20, 2004, he inhibited himself from hearing this case. Executive Judge Isaac R. De Alban, RTC, Ilagan, Isabela, took over and submitted to the OCA his IRR^[3] on May 22, 2006.

Judge De Alban reported that: respondent's letter-query was made to seek clarification of her functions as clerk of court; the same was sent to the OCA in good faith; and  the investigating Judge saw no resentment in the letter-query on the part of respondent as to the alteration made by complainant on the performance rating of one of the staff. Thus, he recommended that the charge of insubordination be dismissed.

On the charge of discourtesy in the course of official duties, the investigating Judge found respondent administratively liable for discourtesy with respect to her dealings with her subordinates as follows:

xxx In this case, respondent displayed conduct that fell short of the standards expected of a lawyer by her dealings with people lower than her position. Her unguarded utterances, impatience and her undisguised lack of concern constituted vulgar unbecoming conduct that eroded public confidence in the judiciary, although the foregoing allegations were not sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt by the complainant, the same may be considered for what is needed in an administrative inquiry/investigation is mere substantial evidence. Perhaps, respondent is respectful to colleagues in the profession and other persons higher in her rank, but not to non-lawyers and subordinates.^[4] (Underscoring supplied)

However, in the dispositive portion of his IRR, he stated:

xxx. The misconduct of the respondent is classified under Section 9, paragraphs 4 and 5 of Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, as less serious offense punishable by any of the sanctions enumerated in Section 11 (b) of the same Rule. However, due to the fact that the respondent's actuations could only be classified as arrogance short of discourtesy, and an assertion of her superiority over her subordinates respondent to go light with her emotions. This should serve as a warning that passing the bar is not a passport to be arrogance, discourteous and disrespectful. A member of the Bar should at all time act with candor, humility, courtesy and civility. They should be temperate, patient and courteous, both in conduct and in language.^[5] (Underscoring supplied)

In its Evaluation Report and Recommendation (ERR) dated February 6, 2007, the OCA affirmed the findings and recommendation of Judge De Alban. The dispositive portion of the ERR states:

In view thereof, respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court are the following recommendations: (1) the charge of insubordination against respondent Atty. Blaise Sambolledo- Barcena, former Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City be DISMISSED for lack of merit; but (2) no withstanding her resignation lawyer and a public servant in as courteous a manner as possible. ^[6](Underscoring supplied)

Prior to the filing of this case, respondent gave Mr. Maximiano Corsino, Process Server, a "Satisfactory" rating. The rating was changed by complainant to "Very Satisfactory" to allegedly enable Mr. Corsino to qualify for promotion as sheriff. Thereafter, respondent sent to the OCA the subject letter-query and this administrative controversy arose.

The Court finds no act of insubordination in respondent's letter-query, which only posed the following questions:

1. Is the performance rating given by her (respondent) to the staff subject to alteration by the Presiding Judge?
   
   
2. Can she (respondent) issue a memorandum to the staff relative to administrative matters without prior approval of the Presiding Judge? Can she (respondent) just copy furnish the Judge? If she (respondent) can, what would be her course of action if said memorandum is not complied with?
   Under what circumstances can the Presiding Judge sign the daily time records of the staff even if she (respondent) is around?
   

In Go v. Achas^[7] the Court declared that:

x x x it is settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant. In fact, if the complainant upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim, the respondent is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee or magistrate is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.^[8]

Hence, the Court approves the recommendation of the OCA and the investigating judge that the complaint for insubordination be dismissed for lack of merit.

The evidence on record with respect to the charge of discourtesy are:

COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE

The complainant submitted a joint affidavit executed by practically all of the staff of RTC Branch 4, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, alleging among others the arrogance, discourtesy and disrespect of the respondent to them, towards lawyers as well as court litigants, winch they testified in court during the conduct of investigation by at least 3 investigating judges the first was Judge Orlando D. Beltran, the then presiding Judge, RTC Branch 1, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan then Judge Antonio N. Laggui, and now this representation.

The following affiants executed the aforementioned Joint Affidavit and testified among others that:

Maximiano C. Corsino - he was a witness to the humiliations Josephine Jose received from the respondent. There was a time where Josephine Jose was absent and this witness typed a subpoena and type respondent's name and position at the bottom of the subpoena, respondent called his attention and arrogantly s aid "napakabobo mo naman stupid ka, apay saan mo nga ikabil ti "attorney" ditoy? Pinagrigrigatak daytoy ti sangapulo nga tawen." Another incident when they were in the court room, he overheard the respondent commenting in open court while a trial was on going: "mali ang ruling ng Judge, Hindi siya nagbabasa ng trial techniques."

Josephine P. Jose was humiliated by the respondent when she failed to attached registry receipts on the record by addressing her "bobo, dumdbell, stupida ang tatanda ninyo ang bo-bobo ninyo pa."

Elma C. Santiago - a victim to respondent's discourtesy when respondent's answer to her request to clear what she wrote in her draft which she requested her to type was: "saan nak man is-istorhuin mauang ta adda ti kukwaik" then threw the paper on the table.

Jacinto I. Danao, Leticia F. Domingo and Rafaela G. Ancheta - were witnesses to all the indignations their officemate, Josephine Jose suffered under the respondent when the former was shouted upon by the respondent, and likewise are witnesses to the arrogance and disrespect of the respondent to a petitioner in an adoption case where she shouted: "you and your lawyer are liars" causing the poor litigant to suffer hypertension and so he have to be rushed to a physician for treatment.

Mantes R, Manio - testified among others that she was a witness to an incident wherein the respondent could not find a copy of a decision which was earlier promulgated in court so she shouted: "Ukinna yu inlaku yu man ngatan jay decision, agtatakaw kayo amin, awan ti ma piar ko kanyayo ditoy!"

And  finally,  the  complainant herself,  Judge  Lyliha-Abella-Aquino, testified on the instances when the respondent committed insubordination when she wrote the Office of the Court Administrator on matters pertaining to a query on a clear-cut definition or delineation of the powers & functions as Branch Clerk of Court (BCOC). Complainant likewise considered the act discourteonsness and disrespectfulness to her person as well as her position as her immediate supervisor.

RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE

For her defense, the Respondent presented affidavits of her colleagues in the profession in the person of Atty. Renato T. Cabrido, of the Public Attorney's Office, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. He affirmed and confirmed the veracity of a Joint Affidavit where he was one of the affiants thereof The other three affiants were Attys. Noel A. Mora, Rommel C. Baligod and Edmundo T. Quilang, who unfortunately were not presented to affirm and confirm said Joint Affidavit. However, this witness alleged among others the good character of the respondent. That he never experienced any act of discourtesy or disrespect on the part of the respondent, Atty. Sambolledo. That he attest to the integrity, courteousness and good conduct and behavior of the respondent as an officer of the Court and as a lawyer.

Atty. Balise Sambolledo-Barcena took the witness stand for and in her behalf and denied practically all the allegations as contained in the comjslaint and the testimonies of complainant's witness in open court. She further affirmed and confirmed the veracity of her answer on her letter to the then Court Administrator, Hon. Alfredo L. Benipayo dated December 6, 2(300. She further alleged that she never received any memorandum or calling her attention of her discourteousness, disrespectful, arrogance and much more her insubordination to the herein complaint. Never did she receive from the staff of said branch a written complaint regarding her inclination embarrassing the members of the staff in the presence of litigant and/or lawyers. Respondent likewise submitted affidavits executed by several colleagues in the profession to support her claim but unluckily. Affiants thereof, were never presented in court to affirm and confirm their allegations in the said affidavits.^[9]

Except for the bare denial of respondent, she failed to present evidence to refute the testimonies of the court personnel namely, Maximiano Corsino, Josephine Jose, Elma Santiago, Jacinto Danao, Leticia Domingo, and Rafael Ancheta relative to the charge of discourtesy. Only a certain Atty. Renato Cabrido testified as witness for respondent with respect to the good character of the former. Being court employees, said witnesses for the complainant are knowledgeable of the consequences of executing sworn statements and affirming that the same are true in a formal hearing. Consequently, We agree with the OCA and the investigating Judge that complainant was able to prove the charge of discourtesy against respondent by means of substantial evidence.

While the Court is convinced that the actuations of respondent were brought about by her honest intention to make her staff more efficient and effective court employees, her use of intemperate, vulgar, and insulting words against them cannot be tolerated.

It appearing that this is respondent's first offense, the appropriate penalty is reprimand under Rule IV, Section 52(C)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. For her honest intention, the Court agrees with the OCA that respondent is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of good faith.

Due to respondent's resignation from the judiciary, her good faith as mitigating circumstance and considering that she is still connected with the government as an employee of the Executive Department, the recommendation of the OCA that she be reminded of her responsibilities is well-taken,

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is found guilty of discourtesy in the course of official duties and is ADMONTSBnED for her intemperate, insulting and vulgar utterances. As a public servant and a lawyer, she is REMINDED to conduct herself in as courteous manner as possible.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1]  Rollo, pp. 2-8.

^[2] Id. at 16-23.

^[3] Report and Recommendation of Investigating Judge, pp. 1-6.

^[4] Id.

^[5] Id.

^[6] OCA Evaluation Report and Recommendation dated February 6, 2007, p.6.

^[7] AM No. MTJ-04-1564, March 11, 2005,453 SCRA 189.

^[8] Go v. Achas, id. at 195.

^[9] Report and Recommendation of Investigating Judge, pp. 2-4.