ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.M. No. P-99-1325. January 19, 2000]

MARILOU D. ARELLANO vs. COURT STENOGRAPHER TONETTE D. MANLUCO-SALAMANCA et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 19 2000.

A.M. No. P-99-1325 (Marilou D. Arrllano vs. Court Stenographer Tonette D. Manluco-Salamanca and Legal Researcher Celia A. Flores.)

Court Stenographer III Marilou Arellano filed a complaint-affidavit, dated December 4, 1997, against Court Stenographer Tonette D. Manluco-Salamanca and Court Legal Researcher II Maria Celia A. Flores, complainant's fellow employee at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 217, Quezon City.

Complainant alleged that she did not receive the P7,200.00 fringe benefits given to judiciary employees on December 1996, because her check was claimed by respondent Manluco-Salamanca as shown by the signature of said respondent on the payroll sheet. Apparently, complainant's check was given to respondent Manluco-Salamanca on the strength of the letter, dated May 15, 1996, signed by the employees of Branch 217, including complainant, authorizing her (respondent Manluco-Salamanca), to get their checks and to sign the payroll on their behalf. Complainant claims, however, that respondent Flores forged her signature in the letter of authorization.

In her answer, dated May 4, 1997, respondent Manluco-Salamanca admitted receiving complainant's check. She claimed, however, that she did so pursuant to the letter of authorization, dated May 15, 1996, and that it was upon complainant's instructions that she delivered the check to her (respondent's) uncle Romeo C. Domingo to whom complainant was indebted. Respondent Manluco-Salamanca claimed that the present complaint was filed because she had executed an affidavit in support of her uncle's complaint for violation of B.P. No. 22 against complainant.

Respondent Flores, for her part, in her answer denied having anything to do with the alleged forgery of complainant's signature in the authorization letter, dated May 15, 1996. She also alleged that even assuming that complainant's signature had been forged, complainant ratified the authorization as shown by the fact that for one year and seven months she received her salaries and other benefits using the said letter of authorization. Respondent Flores claimed that complainant included her in the complaint in retaliation for her (Flores) support given to Romeo C. Domingo and for opposing the renewal of complainant's appointment. In her supplemental answer, respondent Flores claimed that complainant had gone in hiding to evade arrest in several cases involving the issuance by her of bouncing checks.

In a supplemental complaint, dated August 25, 1998, complainant claimed that respondent Flores had been dismissed from her previous employment, and that the dismissal had been affirmed by the Supreme Court; and that the copy of the disputed authorization letter, dated may 15, 1996, attached to respondent Flores' supplemental answer contained alterations made to favor the latter. Complainant also alleged that respondent Flores had earlier forged the signature of their branch clerk of court in issuing a memo to a fellow employee.

Respondent Flores denied the allegation in the supplemental complaint and prayed that the same be dismissed for not being under oath.

On June 21, 1999, the Court referred their case to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for investigation, report, and recommendation.

In her report, dated December 1, 1999, executive Judge Perlita J. Tria-Tirona informs the Court that the notices of the hearings for September 2, October 26, and 28, 1999 could not be served on complainant because she no longer resided at her given address and had left no forwarding address. Executive Judge Tirona also stated that she had no way of contacting complainant as the latter was also no longer employed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City since her contract was not renewed when it expired on March 25, 1998. Judge Tria-Tirona, therefore, recommends that the instant complaints be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

The Court finds the recommendation well taken. Had complainant really been desirous of pursuing her complaints against respondents she could have given this Court her present address or at least left word at Branch 217, where she used to work, or even at her previous address at Phase 4, Block 4, Package 4, Lot 4, Bagong Silang, Caloocan City. Her failure to do so is an indication of her lack of interest to prosecute this case. Without presenting evidence in support of her complaints against respondents, this case cannot proceed.

WHEREFORE, as recommended by Executive Judge Perlita J. Tria-Tirona of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, the Court resolved to DISMISS the complaint-affidavit, dated December 4, 1997, and the supplemental complaint, dated August 25, 1998, of Marilou D. Arellano

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE