ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-2471-RTJ.
EVANGELINE P. GARCIA v. JUDGE ARMANDO A. YANGA, OIC-CLERK OF COURT CECILIA HERNANDEZ-CHING AND UTILITY WORKER RUDY P. ECLIPSE, RTC, BRANCH 66, BALER, AURORA
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 20, 2006 .
A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-2471-RTJ (Evangeline P. Garcia v. Judge Armando A. Yanga, OIC-Clerk of Court Cecilia Hernandez-Ching and Utility Worker Rudy P. Eclipse, RTC, Branch 66, Baler, Aurora)
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:
In her VERIFIED COMPLAINT Evangeline P. Garcia, Court Stenographer III charged respondents Judge Armando A. Yanga, OIC-Clerk of Court Cecilia Hernandez-Ching and Utility Worker Rudy P. Eclipse with Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty and Violation of Code of Judicial Conduct and R.A. 6713 in relation to Election Protest Case No. 98 entitled "Tito T. Tubigan vs. Marilyn B. Marquez."
Complainant averred that respondents obstructed, perverted and impeded the administration of justice when they colluded with each other in opening the ballot boxes that were submitted to the custody of the court in connection with the election protest case. He narrated that the ballot boxes and other election paraphernalia were received by Sheriff Nonito A. Bringas and respondent OIC Branch Clerk of Court Cecilia Hernandez-Ching. The same were placed inside the room of respondent Cecilia Hernandez-Ching.
She claimed that after the ballot boxes and election paraphernalia
were delivered and placed inside the room, respondent Judge inspected the
ballot boxes and thereafter instructed respondent Eclipse to separate the
ballot boxes with plastic seals attached on the outer surface from the ballot boxes
without plastic seals. On
Complainant further alleged that Lensie Racca, the most senior stenographer even commented that "Ang tagal-tagal ko ng empleyado dito sa RTC, ngayon lang ako nakakita ng pinapakialaman ang balota, maraming naifile na election protests wala naman ganyang nangyari, kapag magkaroon bulilyaso damay tayong lahat." Irene Gonzales, another court stenographer commented that "Hay naku! Bahala kayo sa ginawa ninyong yan." Court Stenographer Mary Jane P. Hulipas said "Basta wag nyo 'kong idamay dyan."
On 13 July 2004, complainant averred that she heard from another
court personnel, that the protestee, Mayor Marquez,
was already informed about the fact that even before the pre-trial conference,
the ballot boxes were already opened, and that she might talk to respondent
Judge anytime to verify said information. In support, complainant attached the affidavit
of Mayor Marquez. She added that on
|
|
|
Rudy Eclipse |
|
|
|
Rudy Eclipse |
|
|
|
Judge Yanga |
|
|
Rudy Eclipse |
|
|
|
|
Rudy Eclipse |
|
|
Judge Yanga |
|
|
|
|
Rudy Eclipse |
|
|
|
Rudy Eclipse |
During the revision of ballots, the representatives of Mayor Marquez made the following manifestations:
a.����������� the security markings placed on the ballot boxes were disarranged;
b.����������� the plastic seals on the ballot boxes were broken;
c.����������� the envelopes inside the ballot boxes containing the election returns were already opened;
d.����������� the paper seals on the envelopes containing the official ballots were already broken;
e.����������� tampering of ballots;
f. new or fake ballots were inserted and stuffed in the ballot boxes containing forged signatures of the BEI Chairman.
Complainant attached the TSNs wherein said manifestations were made.
Complainant alleged that, on several occasions, she and other court personnel heard respondent Judge when he gave advises [sic] to Engr. Tito Tubigan, the protestant in the election protest on what to do with the criminal cases filed against Mayor Marquez. Further, she alleged that on several occasions, protestant Tubigan visited respondent and she and other court personnel heard them discuss the plans against Mayor Marquez.
In his COMMENT, respondent Judge vehemently denied the charges against him and claimed that the instant administrative case is an act of revenge on the part of complainant because she has strong grudges against the respondent. This was caused by her ill-feeling when respondent wrote to the then Court Administrator, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. to call the latter's attention on the illicit relationship between Fidel A. Arcilla, Jr., Sheriff IV of the OCC and herein complainant. In support, respondent Judge attached the Clinical Abstract/Medical Court Report conducted by the Physician which was submitted to the Branch 66 for the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage docketed as Civil Case No. 771 entitled "Evangeline P. Garcia-Mercado vs. Larry N. Mercado". Said psychological test showed her "aggressive defiance of authority."
Respondent argued that when the contested ballot boxes reached his court, they noticed that several ballot boxes had missing COMELEC plastic seals while others have. He alleged that he gave instructions to respondent Eclipse to arrange the ballot boxes and transfer the same to the office of OIC-COC respondent Hernandez-Ching to make sure that the integrity of the ballot boxes are maintained. He maintained that tampering of the ballot boxes would be highly absurd and it would be suicidal for anyone to open the same and tamper with the results in broad daylight, during office hours, in the presence of all the court employees of the RTC, Branch 66, not to mention walk-in clients.
He averred that protestee Marquez had
strongly anticipated that the reports of anomalies done on the contested ballot
boxes might result in favor of protestant Tubigan. He even received offers of bribe money from
both parties but he politely declined the same. On
In her Affidavit dated
In his Affidavit, respondent Rudy P. Eclipse denied the allegations. He stated that the ballot boxes were delivered to the court and placed at the room where the four stenographers, branch sheriff, process server and utility worker hold office. After the ballot boxes were delivered, respondent Ching instructed him to bring the same to her office for custody and safekeeping. He averred that he arranged it in such a manner that it will not occupy so much space considering that her office is small. Several days thereafter, he arranged the same according to precinct number attached to the ballot boxes. He argued that it was impossible for them to open the ballot boxes in the office of respondent Ching because the windows of the office of the court personnel of Branch 66 were made of transparent jalousies and the people outside the office can clearly see the inner portion of the office of the where the ballot boxes were placed. He denied the allegation that respondent Yanga instructed him to count the number of padlock of each ballot boxes [sic] because the only instruction given to him regarding the ballot boxes was for him to assist respondent Ching in bringing the same to the latter's office.
EVALUATION: The complaint is devoid of merit.
The alleged opening of contested boxes in full view of the court personnel is inherently incredible. Moreover, the affidavits of the witnesses who were the court stenographers who supposedly made comments on the alleged opening of the ballot boxes were not presented.
The established rule in administrative proceedings is that the
burden of proof that respondent Judge committed the act complained of rests on
the complainant. Administrative charges
against members of the judiciary must be supported at least by substantial
evidence. Failure to do so will result
in the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. (Elena
R. Alcaraz vs. Judge Francisco S. Lindo,
MTJ-04-1539;
In the instant case, the charges of the complainant against the respondent Judge failed to meet the required weight of evidence, i.e., substantial evidence which Rule 133, Section 5 of the Revised Rules on Evidence define as "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion."
A review of the records shows that the complainant failed to establish by the required quantum of evidence the culpability of respondent for the serious charges mentioned above.
Anent the charges against respondents Ching and Eclipse. It has been ruled that "In the absence of evidence to the contrary,
the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his or her duties
will prevail. Even in administrative
cases, if a court employee is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the
evidence against him or her should be competent and derived from direct
knowledge. Reliance on mere allegations,
conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg
to stand on. Charges based on mere
suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence. (Steve Lui vs.
Gerardo M. Daroy, MTCC, Branch 2,
Dagupan
City
,
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully submitted that the instant administrative case against respondent Judge Armando A. Yanga, OlC-Clerk of Court Cecilia Hernandez-Ching and Utility Worker Rudy P. Eclipse be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.
This Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees of the judiciary, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. [1] cralaw
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Armando A. Yanga, OlC-Clerk of Court Cecilia Hernandez-Ching and Utility Worker Rudy P. Eclipse is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Sarmiento v. Salamat, 416 Phil. 684, 695 (2001).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
