ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. P-01-1470.March 21, 2001]

LIPNICA-PABILANE et al. vs. AGUILA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 21 2001.

A.M. No. P-01-1470(Vivian Lipnica-Pabilane, Natividad Ranzos and Juanita Marasigan vs. Rosalie T. Aguila, Clerk of Court, MTC-Tagkawayan, Quezon.)

Respondent Rosalie T. Aguila, Clerk of Court, MTC-Tagkawayan, Quezon is charged with Grave Misconduct by Vivian Lipnica Pabilane, Interpreter I, Natividad Ramos, and Juanita Marasigan, both Court Stenographers 1, same court . Specifically complainants alleged that: respondent, a married woman and mother of two children, entertained male visitors during office hours particularly Dr. Arnel Artos, the Rural Health Unit (RHU) Officer of Tagkawayan, who always stayed practically the whole day; Dr. Artos made the MTC his virtual clinic by seeing patients, dispensing prescriptions, and conducting RHU business there; respondent allowed Dr. Artos to read court decisions not yet promulgated; the rumored affair between respondent and Dr. Artos was so ripe that the latter's wife, Dr. Cristina Artos, confronted respondent at the MTC sometime in June 1996 and has since then frequented the MTC placing it in an embarrassing situation; respondent was not performing her duties as Clerk of Court but would leave them to the senior Staff Assistant, Pilar Garcia, to perform; and respondent, being the owner and administrator of Our Lady of Blessed Fatima School in Tagkawayan, entertained teacher-applicants and parents and distributed school supplies and books at the MTC.

Respondent denied the charges in her Comment dated 13 May 1997. She admitted having entertained visitors but only when they dropped by the court on official business and regardless of gender; that while she is indeed the owner and administrator of Our Lady of Blessed Fatima School the day-to-day affairs of the school were managed by an assistant supervisor subject only to her general supervision; and that such supervisory function did not interfere with her duties as Clerk of Court.

We initially refer red this case on 10 December 1997 to Executive Judge Rodolfo V. Garduque, ¹ Compulsorily retired 28 October 1998. RTC, Calauag, Quezon for investigation, report and recommendation.

In a Report dated 16 March 1998 Judge Garduque recommended that the case be dismissed on the ground that complainants manifested to him that they were no longer interested in pursuing the case after talking with respondent. However he also recommended that respondent be admonished to be more careful in the proper discharge of her duties and "to act in such a way that the public she has sworn to serve may not find cause to complain" after discovering from personal interrogation of municipal personnel of Tagkawayan that respondent indeed entertained during office hours visitors who were not there on official business.

We adopted the foregoing recommendation in our Resolution of 27 April 1998. ² This is before Office of the Court Administrator v. Eje, AM. No. P-96-1198, 7 July 1998 and Javier v. Samonte, A.M. OCA IPI No. 97-216-P, 21 September 1998.

However in a Letter dated 27 October 1998 counsel for complainants asked for re-investigation claiming that complainants were not individually investigated regarding the truth of their allegations. On 14 July 1999 we treated this letter as a motion for reconsideration and referred the case to Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Zenaida N. Elepano ³ Now Acting Court Administrator. for investigation, report and recommendation after the Court received three (3) other letters, namely: separate letters from Ka Jenny and Ka Rhoda of the New Peoples Army(NPA) in Quezon Province, and a third one from Dr. Cristina R. Artos, wife of Dr. Arnel Artos, all informing the Court of the alleged continuing immoral activities of respondent.

In a Report dated 6 December 2000 DCA Elepa�o reported that although respondent's rumored illicit affair with Dr. Arnel Artos was not clearly established, it was nevertheless confirmed from court personnel and even by former Executive Judge Garduque that respondent indeed entertained Dr. Arnel Artos during office hours, sometimes in the judge's chambers, and even if the latter had no official business with the court. In fact respondent admitted that Dr. Artos visited her regularly at the MTC to borrow and read newspapers and discuss current issues; ⁴ TSN, 19 May 2000, p. 14. that the latter continued with his visits even after this case was filed primarily to annoy herein complainants; ⁵ Ibid. and that the wife of Dr. Artos confronted her once about the rumored affair with her husband although it happened when nobody was around except she and her Staff Assistant Pilar Garcia.

Anent the charge that respondent is the administrator of Our Lady of Blessed Fatima School DCA Elepa�o reported that respondent initially tried to exculpate herself from the charge by claiming that she had relinquished the school's administration to her sister. However the evidence showed that respondent still actively administered the school which she owns. In fact respondent acknowledged that her duties in the school sometimes interfered with her work in court although she immediately corrected herself everytime. ⁶ TSN, 19 May 2000, p. 23. The admission was treated as lending credence to the claim that respondent's duties as Clerk of Court were mostly discharged by senior Staff Assistant Pilar Garcia. While respondent denied the claim she nevertheless admitted having delegated some of her duties like issuing court clearances, receipts and inventory although she always double-checked the latter and did not simply sign reports. ⁷ Id., p. 17. When it was pointed out to her that the inventory of cases must be personally conducted by the presiding judge assisted by the clerk of court, respondent corrected her answer by saying that it was only the typing of inventory reports that she delegated. ⁸ lbid. Lastly DCA Elepa�o reported that respondent indeed used MTC premises as storage and distribution center of her school books and supplies and that the same manifestly degraded the court's honor and dignity as well as exposed judicial records to danger of loss and damage.

For all the foregoing DCA Elepa�o recommended that respondent be: (1) fined P8,000.00 for Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Officer and (2) directed to relinquish her position as Administrator of Our Lady of Blessed Fatima School.

We adopt the findings of the investigator but modify the recommended penalty in line with existing jurisprudence.

The Court has often enough admonished its officials and employees to act with strict propriety and proper decorum to earn and keep the publics respect and trust in the judicial system. ⁹ Orfile v. Quiroz, AM. No. P-97-1234, 18 August 1997, 277 SCRA 493. This is so since the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of its personnel from the judge to the lowest employee. ¹⁰ Dicdican v. Fernan, Jr., AM. No. P-96-1231, 12 February 1997, 268 SCRA 69. The dictum applies with equal if not greater force to clerks of court who, as next in rank to judges and whose office is the hub of activities both adjudicative and administrative, tare specifically mandated to safeguard the court's integrity and earn respect therefor. ¹¹ RTC Makati Movement Against Graft and Corruption v. Dumlao, AM. No. P-93-800, 9 August 1995, 247 SCRA 108.

In the instant case respondents conduct fell short of the foregoing standard when she regularly entertained Dr. Arnel Artos practically the whole day to the extent that the latter's wife even confronted her in court about the rumored affair. Although respondent claimed that her relationship with Dr. Artos was totally innocent the fact that her subordinates at the MTC were scandalized by Dr. Artos' continued unofficial presence in court should have impelled respondent to use her authority and exert greater effort to put a stop to the visits if only to demonstrate her concern for the integrity and image of the court which it was her duty to protect.

Anent the charge that respondent used the MTC as an extension of her office as administrator of Our Lady of Blessed Fatima School which she owns, we affirm DCA Elepa�os findings in this regard. In her Comment on the complaint respondent admitted that she is the owner and administrator of the school but that its day-to-day affairs were managed by an assistant supervisor subject only to her general supervision. Although she reversed herself during the hearing on 19 May 2000 by denying that she was the administrator ¹² TSN, p. 19. the evidence clearly showed otherwise. In her Letter dated 23 August 1996 addressed to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), Region IV, respondent actively performed the duties of an administrator by submitting the required documents needed for the procurement of a permit to operate a nursery, kindergarten, preparatory and grade one of the school. ¹³ Rollo, p. 18. She likewise signed certificates of recognition issued to pupils, ¹⁴ Id., p. 37. and was listed as the Administrator of Our Lady of Blessed Fatima School in the Guest List for the 49th Commencement Exercises for the Year 2000. ¹⁵ Id., no pagination. In addition, respondent admitted that she distributed books to students of her school outside the office although she distributed them inside the MTC for those whose parents work thereat, ¹⁶ TSN, 19 May 2000, p. 19. and that not only the parents of pupils come to see her in court ¹⁷ Id., pp. 22-23. but teacher-applicants as well although she always referred them to her in-charge and principal at the school. ¹⁸ Id., p. 20.

Under Administrative Circular No. 5, dated 4 October 1988, officials and employees of the judiciary are prohibited from engaging in any private business, vocation or profession without prior approval of the Court ¹⁹ Quiroz v. Orfila, AM. No. P-96-1210, 7 May 1997, 272 SCRA 324; Gasulas v. Maralit, AM. No. P-90-416, 25 August 1994, 235 SCRA 585; Tablate v. Tanjutco- Seechung, AM. No. 92-20-425-0MB, 15 July 1994, 234 SCRA 161. since their entire time must be devoted to government service to insure efficient and speedy administration of justice. This is true even if the private business, vocation or profession would be undertaken in outside office hours. ²⁰ Biyaheros Mart Livelihood Association, Inc. v. Cabusao, Jr., Adrn. Matter No. P-93-811, 2 June 1994, 232 SCRA 707. Thus we imposed a fine of P1,000.00 upon a court aide who operated a sari sari store inside court premises, ²¹ Quiroz v. Orfila, see Note 19. suspended for one (1) month without pay a sheriff who acted as administrator/trustee of a market to augment his meager salary, ²² See Note 20. and suspended for six (6) months without pay a court stenographer who engaged in a pyramiding business during office hours. ²³ Gasulas v. Maralit, see Note 19. For respondent who acted as Administrator of Our Lady of Blessed Fatima School which she owns, aggravated by her conduct with regard to Dr. Arnel Artos which amounts to conduct unbecoming of a court officer, we deem a penalty of suspension for one (1) month without pay appropriate under the circumstances.

WHEREFORE, for Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Officer and Violation of Administrative Circular No. 5, dated 4 October 1988 amounting to Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, respondent ROSALIE T. AGUILA is SUSPENDED from office for one (1) month without pay, effective on the day following service on her of a copy of this Resolution, and STERNLY WARNED that further commission of similar or related acts will be dealt with more severely. She is further DIRECTED to relinquish, within three (3) days from such service, her position as Administrator of Our Lady of Blessed Fatima School and to submit proof thereof to this Court within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from such relinquishment.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE