THIRD DIVISION
[OCA-I.P.I. No. 10-3405-P. November 8, 2017.]
HELEN ADAJAR AND JOAN ADAJAR, complainants,vs. REMEDIOS F. DIAZ, UTILITY WORKER I, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BR. 69, PASIG CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 8, 2017, which reads as follows: cHDAIS
"OCA-I.P.I. No. 10-3405-P (Helen Adajar and Joan Adajar v. Remedios F. Diaz, Utility Worker I, Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 69, Pasig City)
This resolves the administrative complaint for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Conduct Unbecoming a Court Employee filed by Helen Adajar and Joan Adajar (complainants Helen and Joan) against Rosario F. Diaz (respondent), Utility Worker I at the Pasig City Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 69.
On 1 February 2012, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that Executive Judge Joy Nierves Casihan-Dumlao (Investigating Judge Casihan-Dumlao) of the Pasig City Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 72 be directed to conduct an investigation and to submit a report and recommendation on the complaint as well on the duties of the other employees of Branch 69. 1 This Court then issued a Notice dated 16 April 2012 2 directing Investigating Judge Casihan-Dumlao to conduct an investigation and to submit a report and recommendation. Investigating Judge Casihan-Dumlao's Report and Recommendation dated 9 August 2012 3 recommended the dismissal of the complaint. In a Memorandum dated 14 July 2017, 4 the OCA upheld the findings of Investigating Judge Casihan-Dumlao and likewise recommended the dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant Helen Adajar, in her Complaint-Affidavit dated 25 May 2010 5 and Reply-Affidavit dated 6 July 2010, 6 alleged that she is the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 107075-107077 for unjust vexation docketed in Branch 69, Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City. On 21 January 2010, she was arrested by policemen at her residence for not being able to attend the hearing scheduled for 14 December 2009. Due to her arrest, she had to spend one (1) night incarcerated until her bail was paid the following day. As a result, she claimed to have greatly suffered emotionally, and also aggravated her ailments which included hypertension, diabetes and heart illness. She alleged that her arrest was due to the fact that she did not receive the subpoena requiring her to go to court. Her daughter, complainant Joan, went to Branch 69, Pasig City Metropolitan Trial Court to inquire about this notice embodied in the Order dated 18 September 2009 which scheduled her arraignment on 14 December 2009. Complainant Joan also saw from the court records that respondent signed for complainant Helen in the court's copy of the Order. Complainant Helen further contended that respondent must not have sent her the Order, otherwise respondent should have sent the same through registered mail instead of ordinary mail. Because of respondent's act of signing for her in the court records, she was greatly prejudiced.
Complainant Joan Adajar, in her Affidavit dated 25 May 2010, 7 reiterated complainant Helen's affidavit, and added that she went to Branch 69, Pasig City Metropolitan Trial Court where she confronted respondent, the "person in-charge of criminal cases," about the warrant of arrest issued against her mother. Complainant Joan was shown the court records of the case, where she saw that someone signed for her mother. Respondent admitted to complainant Joan that she signed for complainant Helen, to which complainant Joan told respondent that because of the latter's acts, the judge thought complainant Helen was informed of the hearing. Respondent purportedly said in a snobbish tone ("[n]a may pagtataray na tono") that the presiding judge knew everything they did and went on in the court. Respondent also explained that they ran out of envelopes, thus they had to use ordinary mail. The court's process server Benedict Cordova witnessed the confrontation.
Respondent, in her Comment dated 22 June 2010 8 and Affidavit dated 19 July 2010, 9 explained that as Utility Worker I, she merely assisted the person in-charge of criminal cases in releasing court orders and other documents to lawyers and party-litigants, and receiving and docketing pleadings, among others. Respondent insisted that she mailed the Orders dated 18 September 2009 and 14 December 2009 by ordinary mail. She also clarified that while she wrote the names of the parties in the court records, she did not do so to make it appear that complainant Helen received the Orders. Rather, her act of signing was to put on record that notices were sent to party-litigants.
The OCA initially considered the failure of respondent to observe the proper procedure provided by Rule 13, section 13, as she was unable to show proof that she mailed the Order dated 18 September 2009. The OCA also mentioned that as Utility Worker I, her functions were limited and she was unable to produce any document stating that she was delegated to assist the clerk in charge of criminal cases in releasing notices of hearing. It was the process server's function to deliver court mail and prepare returns of court processes. It was nevertheless recommended that further investigation be conducted on the matter. Thus, Investigating Judge Casihan-Dumlao was directed to conduct the investigation and prepare a report and recommendation. ISHCcT
Findings of Investigating Judge
Apart from the affidavits and written submissions of the parties, Investigating Judge Casihan-Dumlao conducted a formal hearing held on 11 July 2012. During that hearing, respondent clarified that her duties included releasing orders, preparing subpoenas, and mailing, among others. In the case of complainant Helen, she mailed the notices to the latter and to the private complainant in the criminal case by ordinary mail because there was no available envelope for registered mail at that time due to typhoon "Ondoy." Presiding Judge Ongpauco knew of this situation. Such practice was actually in place from 2006 to January 2011. Respondent admitted that while she signed the court records, it was to indicate that she mailed the notice. If she did not sign, Presiding Judge Ongpauco still would have asked who sent the notice or order.
Also at that hearing, complainants Helen and Joan said that respondent told complainant Helen and the latter's husband not to go to the court to inquire about the hearing since the notice of the hearing will be sent to them. However, complainant Helen never received any. Complainant suffered the humiliation of being arrested due to respondent's negligence.
From the evidence before her, Investigating Judge Casihan-Dumlao made the following observations, to wit:
"A perusal of the Order dated September 18, 2009 would show that [respondent] Remedios indicates (sic) the name of Helen Adajar and May Florence with date (11/11/09) as a sort of copy furnished. She wrote the name of Helen Adajar and May Florence to appear that she sent the subject Order to these persons on November 11, 2009. Taking into consideration her educational attainment, the undersigned believes that when [respondent] Remedios said to Joan Adajar that she signed it, she only means that she wrote the name of Helen Adajar in the said Order to show that she mailed it to her. Likewise, the tenor of the Order dated December 14, 2009 by then Presiding Judge presumed that the accused is notified. The Order does not state that the accused is duly notified. So, even if [respondent] Remedios did not write the name of Helen Adajar in the said Order, a warrant of arrest against Helen would still be issued considering that the then Presiding Judge presumes that she is notified of the hearing.
xxx xxx xxx
To reiterate, [respondent] Remedios (sic) act of writing the name of the complainant Helen Adajar in the subject Order constitutes as a copy furnished for purposes of mailing the order to Helen which is not the basis of the court for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Helen because the then Presiding Judge presumes her to be notified. x x x" 10
Investigating Judge Casihan-Dumlao concluded that respondent's act of writing the name of the parties only indicated a "copy furnished" for purposes of mailing, and should not qualify as conduct unbecoming of a government employee under R.A. No. 6713. She then recommended the dismissal of the complaint.
Findings of the Office of the Court
The OCA prepared a Memorandum as directed by the Resolution of this Court dated 21 June 2017. 11 Similarly, the OCA found no compelling reason to hold the respondent liable for the administrative charges of conduct unbecoming of court personnel and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. As Utility Worker I, respondent can act as a courier of the court. Moreover, the OCA believed that her act of resorting to ordinary mail was adequately explained, thus:
"Investigating Judge Casihan-Dumlao even confirmed that after Typhoon Ondoy hit Metro Manila, there was a scarcity of envelopes for registered mail. Hence, letters and parcels were sent by ordinary mail. There is no reason to disbelieve respondent Diaz that, indeed, at the time of the mailing of the Order dated 18 September 2009 on 11 November 2009, registry service at the Post Office of Pasig City was not yet available. Indeed, under prevailing circumstances, it was justified that the subject order was sent to the parties by ordinary mail. Blame cannot be ascribed to respondent Diaz as the matter was already beyond her control." 12 (italics in the original)
As to respondent's act of signing complainant Helen's name in the court records, the OCA likewise found that the same was not deliberate and insufficient to constitute conduct unbecoming of a court employee. There being no proof of malice or ill-will attributed to respondent, it should be interpreted as only indicating a copy furnished note. Following the logic of Investigating Judge Casihan-Dumlao, the OCA further stated that the warrant was issued based on the notation that the Order was sent, to wit: CAacTH
"[t]hat Acting Presiding Judge Ongpauco issued the warrant of arrest against complainant [Helen] Adajar on the presumption that the latter had notice of the subject Order dated 18 September 2009, pursuant to Section 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, which provides that 'service by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10) days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides.'" 13 (italics in the original)
Respondent only acted upon the orders of her superiors and for that, she cannot be held administratively liable. The OCA then likewise recommended the dismissal of the complaint against respondent.
Issue
The sole issue brought before this Court is whether respondent Diaz should be held administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and conduct unbecoming of a court employee.
The Court's Ruling
This Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of Investigating Judge Casihan-Dumlao and the OCA.
The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel instructs court personnel to perform their official duties properly and with diligence. 14 As already thoroughly discussed in the Report and Recommendation of Investigating Judge Casihan-Dumlao as well as the Memorandum of the OCA, respondent properly and diligently performed her obligations, without any taint of bad faith, ill-will or malice. Absent any contrary evidence, her act of using ordinary mail was justified under the circumstances. There is no question that at the time of the incident, Pasig City was still reeling from the effects of typhoon "Ondoy," thus making it believable that the use of ordinary mail was warranted. This circumstance, taken together with the reason that the court already ran out of envelopes as revealed in the hearing, would all the more add to the credible explanation that ordinary mail was the only recourse for respondent to send the notice. Parenthetically, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court does not prohibit the sending of notices by ordinary mail. 15
As to her act of signing the names of herein complainant Helen and the private complainant in the records of the criminal case, this Court concludes that the findings of both Investigating Judge Casihan-Dumlao and the OCA are well-founded. Respondent's defense that it was only made as a note reflecting the sending of mail to the parties is believable. The written notations in the Orders do not profess to be signatures of the party-litigants. Rather, it is quite obvious that they are "copy furnished" notes with the date of mailing as they are written by the same hand. 16 And because the notice was sent, albeit through ordinary mail, Presiding Judge Ongpauco was in a position to issue the warrant of arrest, regardless of whether it was actually received, because under Section 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, service by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10) days after the date of mailing.
This Court has never shied away from reprimanding or punishing its employees when they exhibit conduct unbecoming of court personnel or for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. However, this is usually reserved for instances when the court employee performs his/her duties contrary to the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel or commits any of the acts enumerated in Section 46, Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No. 292, s. 1987 (Administrative Code of 1987). Said section on the general provisions for discipline of members of the civil service lists the various acts for which an employee of the public sector may be suspended or dismissed. Other proscribed acts for government employees are set forth in R.A. No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. In numerous cases, acts such as soliciting money from party-litigants, 17 failing to pay just debts, 18 quarreling with a co-employee, 19 displaying rude and belligerent behavior towards fellow court employees, 20 discourtesy 21 and showing lack of decorum and propriety, 22 acts tantamount to misconduct, 23 and violating the Rules of Court 24 or Supreme Court circulars, 25 or other analogous circumstances were those regarded as conduct unbecoming of court employees. On the other hand, conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service refers to "acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish, or tend to diminish, the people's faith in the Judiciary." 26
Based on the provisions of law as well as established jurisprudence, this Court cannot hold that respondent's overall conduct was violative of the standards set for public employees and specifically court employees. Respondent's acts, which are devoid of any malice, are also not commensurate to any of the acts contemplated as conduct unbecoming of court personnel. Nor can it be said that her acts violate the expectation of accountability on the judiciary, or erode the people's high regard of the institution. Further, as was highlighted in Investigating Judge Casihan-Dumlao's Report and Recommendation, respondent's educational attainment should also be taken into account in viewing her act, making notes in the names of the party-litigants as a "copy furnished" notation, as unreflective of bad faith. The fact that the Presiding Judge was aware of this practice should also be considered.
Public officers, which includes herein respondent, are accountable to the people, especially court litigants. As such, they are bound to perform their duties and responsibilities with utmost efficiency and competence. This responsibility is imposed upon every person connected with the administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk. 27 Here, respondent performed her duty as best she could, without any ill-will, despite the constraints that confronted the Court. It was only unfortunate that complainant Helen suffered, but her grief cannot be directly attributed to any of respondent's deeds. Thus, this Court does not find that respondent's acts were so injurious that would equate to her having any administrative liability. IAETDc
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. The administrative complaint against Remedios F. Diaz is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 59-63.
2.Id. at 64.
3.Id. at 96-3101.
4.Id. at 105-109.
5.Id. at 1-3.
6.Id. at 34-35.
7.Id. at 4-6.
8.Id. at 18-19.
9.Id. at 36-37.
10.Id. at 100, citations omitted.
11.Id. at 104.
12.Id. at 108-109.
13.Id. at 109.
14. A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, Canon IV, Section 1.
15. Note that personal service or service by registered mail is only required if the document sent is a Judgment, Final Order, or Resolution. See Section 9, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
16.See rollo, pp. 13 and 16; 41 and 42.
17.Narag v. Manio, 608 Phil. 1 (2009), Adoma v. Gatcheco and Taguba, 489 Phil. 273 (2005).
18. See cases Reliways, Inc. v. Grantoza, 474 Phil. 28 (2004), Dumaguete CLC Lending Corporation v. Tubilla, A.M. No. P-15-3343, 3 August 2015, and others.
19.Lam v. Garcia, A.M. No. P-15-3300, 10 February 2016.
20.Ruben v. Abon, 653 Phil. 21 (2010).
21.Narvasa-Kampana v. Josue, 477 Phil. 331 (2004).
22.Manaog v. Rubio and Surtida II, 598 Phil. 491 (2009).
23. See cases such as Gabison v. Almirante, 568 Phil. 36 (2008).
24.Gonzales, et al. v. Calo, 685 Phil. 352 (2012).
25.Dontogan v. Pagkanlungan, Jr., 618 Phil. 95 (2009).
26.Re: Deceitful Conduct of Ignacio S. Del Rosario, 672 Phil. 383, 388-389 (2011).
27.Seangio v. Parce, 553 Phil. 697, 709-710 (2007).