ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. No. P-06-2185. June 26, 2006]

MARGARITA A. SANCHEZ v. ATTY. MA. ASUNCION S. PABATAO-LUMAPAS, CLERK OF COURT VI

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUNE 26, 2006 .

A.M. No. P-06-2185 [formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2411-P] (Margarita A. Sanchez v. Atty. Ma. Asuncion S. Pabatao-Lumapas, Clerk of Court VI)

By an unsworn Letter-Complaint dated August 10, 2005 [1] cralaw addressed to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., one Margarita A. Sanchez (complainant) who gave her address as Maningcol, Ozamis City, charged Atty. Maria Asuncion S. Pabatao-Lumapas, Clerk of Court VI of Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, of discourtesy in the course of official duties.

The letter-complaint purported to have been

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF LUISA N. AMORGANDA niece of complainant.

Complainant gave the following narration which gave rise to the filing of the complaint:

"[S]ometime in August 2005," per advice of RTC Molave, Branch 23 Presiding Judge Loreto C. Quinto [2] cralaw whom she met in Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur where the judge is also Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 30 of the Aurora RTC, she went to Branch 23 of the Molave RTC to inquire on the status of the case of her nephew. [3] cralaw

After being referred from one member of the staff to another, she was directed to proceed to the office of respondent. She introduced herself to respondent, who was then writing, and informed her of the purpose of her visit. Respondent did not respond to her, however.

Thinking that respondent did not hear her, she repeated introducing herself. Respondent scolded her, however, and instructed her to wait as she was busy.

While she was waiting, two women entered respondent's room upon which respondent told her that their purpose was more important than hers and asked her to vacate her seat in favor of one of the two women, there being only two chairs fronting the table of respondent. She heard, however, that the two women were borrowing money from respondent and they were discussing the rate of interest and what property would be used as collateral therefor.

After the two women left, complainant returned to her seat and again stated her purpose. When respondent learned that complainant's nephew was already out on bail, respondent told complainant that the inquiry should be done personally by her nephew and not by her. When she was about to explain that her nephew was unable to do so as he was hospitalized, respondent scolded her again.

Denying the accusation, respondent gave the following Comment: The standard operating procedure since 1990, when a person verifies the status of cases is, with respect to criminal cases, to refer that person to the Criminal Records-in-Charge. It was thus impossible for complainant to be referred "from one table to the other table."

While complainant claimed to have gone to see her "sometime in August 2005," she (complainant) failed to specify the day, despite the fact that the letter-complaint was dated August 10, 2005.

To her Comment respondent attached a Certification dated November 22, 2005 [4] cralaw of Luis D.R. Santos, Jr., the Punong Barangay of Maningcol, Ozamis City, stating that per the barangay records and the investigation it conducted, no persons by the name of Margarita A. Sanchez and Luisa N. Amorganda [5] cralaw resided in Barangay Maningcol, Ozamis City.

In its Report dated March 14, 2006, [6] cralaw the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) made the following evaluation:

EVALUATION: Apparent from the records is the fact that herein complainant is using the fictitious name of Margarita A. Sanchez, as certified by the Punong Barangay of Maningcol, Ozamis City. Being such, we find it difficult and impossible to require the latter to controvert the comment of respondent and to rebut her statements.

Compared to respondent who has submitted several affidavits of her co-employees to vouch that said incident did not really happen, complainant has only her bare allegations. Though self-serving, respondent's justification may be considered more credible than that of the complainant who can no longer be located for further verification. The lack of evidentiary support to sustain her allegations therefore, definitely weakens her claim against respondent for her alleged discourtesy in the course of official duties.

Besides, Section (5) of the Uniform Rules in the Conduct of Administrative Investigations in the Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 94-0521 provides that:

"No action shall be taken on any anonymous complaint, unless there is obvious truth or merit to the allegations thereof. No civil servant shall be required to answer or comment on an anonymous complaint."

The instant complaint being in a nature of an anonymous one calls for the same treatment. The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon erring employees of the judiciary. At the same time, however, neither will it hesitate to shield the same employees from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. (Francisco v. Leyva, 304 SCRA 365). [7] cralaw (Underscoring supplied; Italics in the original).

Thus, the OCA recommended that the instant administrative case be dismissed for lack of merit.

Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 94-0521 cited in the above-quoted OCA Report has been modified by Civil Service Resolution No. 991936 dated August 31, 1999 or the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. [8] cralaw Section 8 of Rule II of Resolution No. 991936 reads:

Section 8. Complaint. - A complaint against a civil service official or employee shall not be given due course unless it is in writing and subscribed and sworn to by the complainant. However, in cases initiated by the proper disciplining authority, the complaint need not be under oath.

No anonymous complaint shall be entertained unless there is obvious truth or merit to the allegations therein or supported by documentary or direct evidence, in which case the person complained of may be required to comment.

The complaint should be written in clear, simple and concise language and in a systematic manner as to apprise the civil servant concerned of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to enable him to intelligently prepare his defense or answer.

The complaint shall contain the following:

a.������ full name and address of the complainant;

b.������ full name and address of the person complained of as well as his position and office of employment;

c.������ a narration of the relevant and material facts which shows the acts or omissions allegedly committed by the civil servant;

d.������ certified true copies of documentary evidence and affidavits of his witnesses, if any; and

e.������ certification or statement of non-forum shopping.

In the absence of any one of the aforementioned requirements, the complaint shall be dismissed. (Underscoring supplied)

Since the letter-complaint of complainant, whose whereabouts cannot be determined if she exists at all, is not under oath, and this Court is unable to determine the truth or merits of her allegations in light of respondent's comment/explanation which appears to be meritorious, the recommendation of the OCA for the dismissal of the complaint is in order.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against Atty. Ma. Asuncion S. Pabatao-Lumapas, Clerk of Court VI, Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 13-14.

[2] cralaw In his Comment, rollo, pp. 15-16, Judge Loreto C. Quinto stated:

Considering the so many number of persons coming to the office, for those who will see me. I'll just asked [sic] their purpose but never asked their names unless they introduced themselves. Because of this, I cannot recall of Ms. Margarita A. Sanchez has appeared before me at my office at RTC Branch 30, allegedly on August 2005 and referred her to RTC Branch 23.

[3] cralaw Complainant did not mention the name of her nephew.

[4] cralaw Rollo, p. 41.

[5] cralaw In the Certification issued by the Punong Barangay, Luisa's surname was spelled Amorgalda, but in the letter-compliant, Luisa signed as Amorganda.

[6] cralaw Rollo, pp. 1-7.

[7] cralaw Id. at 6-7.

[8] cralaw Section 86 of Rule VI of Resolution No. 991936 provides:

Section 86. Repealing Clause.- The Uniform Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative Investigation in the Civil Service Commission as prescribed in the CSC Resolution No. 94-0521 dated January 25, 1994, the Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of Preliminary & Formal Investigation as prescribed by the Civil Service Commission in its Resolution No. 92-457 dated March 24, 1992, Resolution No. 89-779 as implemented by MC No. 46, s. 1989, Sections 61 and 65 of MC 41, s. 1998, Section 9, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Administrative Code of 1987 (EO 292) , Section 2, CSC Memorandum Circular No. 32, s. 1963, and all other office memoranda, memorandum circulars, resolutions, rules or regulations inconsistent with these Rules are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com