October 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > October 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-08-2561 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2670-P] : October 22, 2008] ANDREA G, MAGADAN V. MA. ROSARIO A. NATION, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, BRANCH 22 :
[A.M. No. P-08-2561 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2670-P] : October 22, 2008]
ANDREA G, MAGADAN V. MA. ROSARIO A. NATION, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, BRANCH 22
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 22 October 2008:
A.M. No. P-08-2561 ([Formerly OCA iPI No. 07-2670-P] (Andrea G, Magadan v. Ma. Rosario A. Nation, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 22).� The controversy stemmed from a complaint charging Ma. Rosario A. Nacion (respondent) for conduct unbecoming a court employee and misconduct, docketed as OCA IPI No. 07-2670.
Yolanda Mendoza (Mendoza), through her attorney-in-fact Andrea G. Magadan (complainant), filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan for correction of entry in the certificate of live birth. The petition was scheduled for hearing on 26 October 2007. Complainant allegedly gave P12,000.00 to respondent for the publication of the order setting the petition for hearing. She came all the way from Japan to attend the scheduled hearing but was told of its postponement due to lack of publication. She confronted respondent and asked her to pay for all the expenses incurred as a result of the postponement amounting to P54,000.00.[1] Respondent apparently promised to reimburse complainant.
Atty. Percyveranda A. dela Cruz, the Branch Clerk of Court, issued a memorandum dated 6 November 2007 requiring respondent to explain in writing and under oath the issues[2] discussed in the complaint.
Respondent admitted having received PI 2,000.00 from complainant for publication of the court order setting the latter's petition for hearing. She, however, attributed the failure to effect publication to the contact person of the publisher. She explained that she initially gave P1,500.00 to the contact person on her assurance that the court order would be published in time for the 26 October 2007 hearing. But due to unforeseen circumstances, the order was not published[3]
On 4 December 2007, complainant filed the instant complaint.
In the lst Indorsement dated 7 January 2008; the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the complaint to respondent for comment[4]
On 1 February 2008, respondent sent the 2nd Indorsement reiterating that indeed she had received money from complainant tor publication and indeed she had given a down payment to the contact person of the publisher. She later discovered that the contact person had failed to pay the publisher. Respondent expressed her intention to amicably settle with complainant and offered to pay all expenses. As matter of fact, she had already paid a partial amount of P33,000.00 to complainant.
On 4 August 2008, the (OCA) found respondent guilty of simple misconduct and recommended her suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay and benefits. According to the OCA, respondent's receiving money and making the complainant believe that she would cause publication of the petition constitute conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service as they tend to create in the minds of the public the impression that she is benefiting from the transaction.[5] Considering, however, that the acts of respondent were not shown to be of such gravity as to cause gross prejudice or to amount to corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule, the OCA recommended to hold respondent liable for simple misconduct.
The Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
As an employee of the court, respondent's conduct must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let her be free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary.[6] Respondent's act of receiving money from a litigant to facilitate the publication of her petition creates the impression that she stands to gain from said transaction. To avoid any impropriety or an appearance of impropriety, respondent should have abstained from engaging in such transactions.
OCA initially found respondent liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for which the penalty of suspension for six (6) months, one (1) day to one (1) year is imposed for the first offense.[7] But as discussed by the OCA, the fact that no flagrant violation of the law or gross prejudice was committed as a result of respondent's act, the attendant circumstances should be considered mitigating. Hence, the Court finds the penalty of one (1) month suspension for simple misconduct as just and reasonable.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Ma. Rosario A. Nacion GUILTY of simple misconduct. She is SUSPENDED for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall merit a more severe sanction.
A.M. No. P-08-2561 ([Formerly OCA iPI No. 07-2670-P] (Andrea G, Magadan v. Ma. Rosario A. Nation, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 22).� The controversy stemmed from a complaint charging Ma. Rosario A. Nacion (respondent) for conduct unbecoming a court employee and misconduct, docketed as OCA IPI No. 07-2670.
Yolanda Mendoza (Mendoza), through her attorney-in-fact Andrea G. Magadan (complainant), filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan for correction of entry in the certificate of live birth. The petition was scheduled for hearing on 26 October 2007. Complainant allegedly gave P12,000.00 to respondent for the publication of the order setting the petition for hearing. She came all the way from Japan to attend the scheduled hearing but was told of its postponement due to lack of publication. She confronted respondent and asked her to pay for all the expenses incurred as a result of the postponement amounting to P54,000.00.[1] Respondent apparently promised to reimburse complainant.
Atty. Percyveranda A. dela Cruz, the Branch Clerk of Court, issued a memorandum dated 6 November 2007 requiring respondent to explain in writing and under oath the issues[2] discussed in the complaint.
Respondent admitted having received PI 2,000.00 from complainant for publication of the court order setting the latter's petition for hearing. She, however, attributed the failure to effect publication to the contact person of the publisher. She explained that she initially gave P1,500.00 to the contact person on her assurance that the court order would be published in time for the 26 October 2007 hearing. But due to unforeseen circumstances, the order was not published[3]
On 4 December 2007, complainant filed the instant complaint.
In the lst Indorsement dated 7 January 2008; the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the complaint to respondent for comment[4]
On 1 February 2008, respondent sent the 2nd Indorsement reiterating that indeed she had received money from complainant tor publication and indeed she had given a down payment to the contact person of the publisher. She later discovered that the contact person had failed to pay the publisher. Respondent expressed her intention to amicably settle with complainant and offered to pay all expenses. As matter of fact, she had already paid a partial amount of P33,000.00 to complainant.
On 4 August 2008, the (OCA) found respondent guilty of simple misconduct and recommended her suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay and benefits. According to the OCA, respondent's receiving money and making the complainant believe that she would cause publication of the petition constitute conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service as they tend to create in the minds of the public the impression that she is benefiting from the transaction.[5] Considering, however, that the acts of respondent were not shown to be of such gravity as to cause gross prejudice or to amount to corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule, the OCA recommended to hold respondent liable for simple misconduct.
The Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
As an employee of the court, respondent's conduct must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let her be free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary.[6] Respondent's act of receiving money from a litigant to facilitate the publication of her petition creates the impression that she stands to gain from said transaction. To avoid any impropriety or an appearance of impropriety, respondent should have abstained from engaging in such transactions.
OCA initially found respondent liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for which the penalty of suspension for six (6) months, one (1) day to one (1) year is imposed for the first offense.[7] But as discussed by the OCA, the fact that no flagrant violation of the law or gross prejudice was committed as a result of respondent's act, the attendant circumstances should be considered mitigating. Hence, the Court finds the penalty of one (1) month suspension for simple misconduct as just and reasonable.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Ma. Rosario A. Nacion GUILTY of simple misconduct. She is SUSPENDED for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall merit a more severe sanction.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YAASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
�(Sgd.) LUDICHI YAASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Covers plane fare in the amount of P25,500.00 attorney's fees of P17,000.00 and publication fee of P12.000.00
[2] (1) verbal complaint of petitioner Yolanda Mendoza;
(2) non-transmittal of court's order for raffle to publication companies;
(3) acceptance of money from petitioners for publication; and
(4) connivance with a publication company.
[3] Rollo, p. 9.
[4] Id. at 13.
[5] Id. at 23.
[6] Spouses Tiples v. Montoyo. A.M. No. P-05-2039, 31 May 2006.
[7] Section 23 (t), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules of Implementing book V of E.O. 292
