SECOND DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 16-4597-P. July 3, 2019.]
LUZVIM O. BRILLANTES, complainant, vs.SHERIFF IV SAMUEL G. BASCO, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, AND COURT STENOGRAPHER III NELLY L. BASCO, ALL OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 30, SURIGAO CITY, SURIGAO DEL NORTE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 July 2019which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 16-4597-P — Luzvim O. Brillantes vs. Sheriff IV Samuel G. Basco, Office of the Clerk of Court, and Court Stenographer III Nelly L. Basco, all of Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Surigao City, Surigao del Norte
Antecedents
Complainant Luzvim Brillantes, a court stenographer assigned at the Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Branch 30, Surigao City, Surigao Del Norte charged Nelly and Samuel Basco with conduct unbecoming of a public officer and oppression. Nelly was assigned at the same Branch 30 as court stenographer while Samuel was assigned at the RTC-Office of the Clerk of Court (RTC-OCC) as sheriff. HTcADC
Brillantes averred that Spouses Basco threatened and cursed her in front of other court personnel. Nelly Basco resented her going on sick leave without informing her (Nelly). On June 14, 2016, she had an argument with Samuel Basco after the latter took her work table, claiming it belonged to his wife Nelly. The next day, Samuel again shouted at her. This time, she retorted that Samuel should not get involved because the conflict was between her and Nelly. 1
In addition, Brillantes accused Spouses Basco with engaging in money-lending business during office hours. 2
Spouses Basco denied the charge. They countered that it was Brillantes, a person noted for her antagonistic nature, who constantly hurled insult and spread rumors against them. They even contemplated on filing criminal charges against Brillantes but did not push through with it because it got settled. 3
Under Resolution dated June 18, 2018, the Court referred the complaint to the Executive Judge of RTC, Surigao City, Surigao Del Norte for investigation and report. 4
Report and Recommendation of Executive Judge Leonila P. Gorgolon
In her Report and Recommendation, Executive Judge Leonila P. Gorgolon recommended that the complaint be dismissed, viz.:
xxx xxx xxx
As both parties were not ready, they agreed to set the hearing on the matter on successive dates on October 11, 2018, November 8, 2018 and November 15, 2018 all were set at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
Continuously, Sps. Basco appeared, while Complainant Luzvim Brillantes, failed to appear thou earlier notified for those scheduled investigation. x x x
Considering the non-appearance of the herein plaintiff, the undersigned Judge recommends the DISMISSAL of the case, it appearing on the record that the allegations of the complaint and the counter claim are not fully supported with valid evidences, for not having been presented in evidence, and are considered hearsay. CAIHTE
xxx xxx xxx
For lack of interest to further prosecute this administrative complaint, the same is hereby recommended for its DISMISSAL. 5
xxx xxx xxx
Ruling
A complaint for misconduct and similar charges against a judicial or other public officer or employee cannot just be withdrawn by the simple expediency of the complainant's sudden change of mind or, in this case, dismissed, by the complainant's failure to attend the hearing dates. 6
The Court has the duty to root out misconduct among its employees, regardless of the parties' desistance. Administrative proceedings do not depend on the whims and caprices of the concerned employees for the aggrieved party is the court system. To rule otherwise would subvert fair and prompt administration of justice as well as undermine the discipline of court personnel. Thus, the issue in administrative cases is not whether the complainant has a cause of action against the respondent, but whether the employees have breached the norms and standards of the judiciary. 7
Here, Judge Gorgolon should not have recommended the dismissal of the complaint outright simply because Brillantes disobeyed her directive to appear during the investigation or may have lost interest to prosecute the case. Surely, Judge Gorgolon was thereby not divested of her authority to investigate and ascertain the truth of the charges hurled against Spouses Basco. 8
As this Court's duly deputized investigating authority, Judge Gorgolan may use such appropriate coercive processes to compel the parties, specifically complainant Luzvim Brillantes to comply with her relevant directives. To emphasize, administrative proceedings should not be made to depend on the whims and caprices of the complainants who in a real sense, are only witnesses therein. 9 aScITE
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to refer the case back to the Executive Judge of RTC-Surigao City, Surigao Del Norte to proceed with the exhaustive investigation of the case and to submit his or her report and recommendation within sixty (60) days from notice."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-3.
2.Id. at p. 3.
3.Id. at 17-20, 24-27.
4.Id. at 60-61.
5. Temporary Rollo.
6. See Caseñares v. Almeida, Jr., 381 Phil. 377, 385 (2000).
7.Mamaclay v. Francisco, 447 Phil. 356, 359 (2003).
8.Caseñares v. Almeida, Jr., Supra, Note 6.
9. See Estreller v. Manatad, Jr., 335 Phil. 1077, 1084 (1997).