September 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > September 2010 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-10-2851 : September 27, 2010] ANTONIO C. FLORENDO, COMPLAINANT, VERSUS AURORA C. CASTAÑEDA, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 224, QUEZON CITY, :
[A.M. No. P-10-2851 : September 27, 2010]
ANTONIO C. FLORENDO, COMPLAINANT, VERSUS AURORA C. CASTAÑEDA, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 224, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 September 2010, which reads as follows:
A.M. No. P-10-2851 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3147-P) - ANTONIO C. FLORENDO, complainant, versus AURORA C. CASTA�EDA, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 224, Quezon City, respondent.
RESOLUTION
Before the Court is a complaint for failure to pay just debt filed by Antonio C. Florendo against the respondent, Aurora C. Casta�eda.
Complainant Florendo has filed a motion to withdraw complaint in view of the parties' amicable settlement. Still, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent Casta�eda to file her comment on the complaint.
In her comment, Casta�eda said that she did not know that she still needed to answer the complaint although a motion to withdraw had already been filed. She added that the "misunderstanding" between her and Florendo could be due to Florendo's sudden retirement and separation from the service. Once their communication was reestablished, they were able to settle their misunderstanding amicably.
The OCA found respondent administratively liable for willful failure to pay her just debt and recommended that respondent be reprimanded.
We agree with the OCA that Florendo's withdrawal of his complaint does not warrant the dismissal of this administrative case. The Court has an interest in the conduct and behavior of all officials and employees of the Judiciary and in ensuring at all times the proper delivery of justice to the people. No affidavit of desistance can divest this Court of its jurisdiction under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution to investigate and decide complaints against erring employees of the Judiciary. The issue in this administrative case is not whether Florendo as complainant has a cause of action against Casta�eda, but whether Casta�eda as employee has breached the norms and standards of the courts.[1]
Indeed Casta�eda has admitted her debt which she calls with euphemism as a "misunderstanding" with Florendo that was eventually settled. That the supposed misunderstanding was an unpaid debt is evidenced by Florendo's demand letter and motion to withdraw complaint on the ground that the loan obligation was settled amicably.
However, in view of the eventual settlement of the loan, we deem that CENSURE is commensurate to the act committed.
WHEREFORE, respondent Aurora C. Casta�eda, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 224, Quezon City, is hereby CENSURED.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. P-10-2851 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3147-P) - ANTONIO C. FLORENDO, complainant, versus AURORA C. CASTA�EDA, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 224, Quezon City, respondent.
Before the Court is a complaint for failure to pay just debt filed by Antonio C. Florendo against the respondent, Aurora C. Casta�eda.
Complainant Florendo has filed a motion to withdraw complaint in view of the parties' amicable settlement. Still, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent Casta�eda to file her comment on the complaint.
In her comment, Casta�eda said that she did not know that she still needed to answer the complaint although a motion to withdraw had already been filed. She added that the "misunderstanding" between her and Florendo could be due to Florendo's sudden retirement and separation from the service. Once their communication was reestablished, they were able to settle their misunderstanding amicably.
The OCA found respondent administratively liable for willful failure to pay her just debt and recommended that respondent be reprimanded.
We agree with the OCA that Florendo's withdrawal of his complaint does not warrant the dismissal of this administrative case. The Court has an interest in the conduct and behavior of all officials and employees of the Judiciary and in ensuring at all times the proper delivery of justice to the people. No affidavit of desistance can divest this Court of its jurisdiction under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution to investigate and decide complaints against erring employees of the Judiciary. The issue in this administrative case is not whether Florendo as complainant has a cause of action against Casta�eda, but whether Casta�eda as employee has breached the norms and standards of the courts.[1]
Indeed Casta�eda has admitted her debt which she calls with euphemism as a "misunderstanding" with Florendo that was eventually settled. That the supposed misunderstanding was an unpaid debt is evidenced by Florendo's demand letter and motion to withdraw complaint on the ground that the loan obligation was settled amicably.
However, in view of the eventual settlement of the loan, we deem that CENSURE is commensurate to the act committed.
WHEREFORE, respondent Aurora C. Casta�eda, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 224, Quezon City, is hereby CENSURED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Asst. Clerk of Court
LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Vilar v. Angeles, A.M. No. P-06-2276, February 5, 2007, 514 SCRA 147, 156.
