In Re: De Villa-Rosero

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. 13-3-53-RTC. March 25, 2019.]

IN RE: INCIDENT REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 8, 2013 OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE AMY ANA L. DE VILLA-ROSERO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], LIGAO CITY, ALBAY, ON THE ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES COMMITTED BY COURT STENOGRAPHER III ZENAIDA T. MUSTERA, AND PROCESS SERVER RAUL HINGCO, RTC, BRANCHES 11 AND 12, RESPECTIVELY, LIGAO CITY, ALBAY

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 25, 2019which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. 13-3-53-RTC (In Re: Incident Report dated February 8, 2013 of Executive Judge Amy Ana L. De Villa-Rosero, Regional Trial Court [RTC], Ligao City, Albay, on the alleged irregularities committed by Court Stenographer III Zenaida T. Mustera, and Process Server Raul Hingco, RTC, Branches 11 and 12, respectively, Ligao City, Albay) — For resolution is an administrative matter pertaining to an Incident Report dated February 8, 2013 1 submitted by Judge Amy Ana L. De Villa-Rosero, the former Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Ligao City, Albay.

The Incident Report states that a certain Adiong Llenaresas (complainant Llenaresas) came to the Hall of Justice of Ligao City complaining that he paid P25,000.00 to a certain Robella Clemente (Clemente) for the dismissal of the criminal case of his younger brother, Bryan Llenaresas, supposedly upon the instructions of some court personnel. The court personnel reportedly involved were respondents Court Stenographer III Zenaida T. Mustera (Musters) and Process Server Raul Hingco (Hingco). 2

In a Resolution promulgated on December 2, 2015, 3 this Court referred the matter to the Vice-Executive Judge of the RTC of Ligao City for a more extensive investigation, report, and recommendation.

In proceedings before Investigating Judge Edwin C. Ma-alat, complainant Llenaresas failed to appear despite due notice. However, four (4) other complainants, namely Cheryl Monterde (Monterde), Susan Asilo, Jomar Agripa (Agripa), and Medelyn Bazar, appeared to testify against Mustera and Clemente involving other transactions.

In his Report on Investigation dated June 15, 2016, 4 the Investigating Judge recommended that the case against Hingco be dismissed with a warning against associating with persons who appeared to be engaged in "case-fixing." As for Mustera, the Investigating Judge recommended that she may be held administratively liable for her behavior and actuations in relation to the cases of Monterde and Agripa. ITAaHc

Incidentally, Mustera and Clemente were the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 6963 and 6964 filed by Monterde and Agripa, pending before Branch 13 of the RTC of Ligao City. On July 3, 2018, the RTC promulgated its judgment in said criminal case, acquitting Mustera for lack of evidence to show her direct participation in Clemente's transactions that were entered into under false pretenses. Neither was the existence of a conspiracy between Mustera and Clemente proven by the prosecution.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with the factual findings of the Investigating Judge, but deviated with respect to the administrative liability incurred by respondents. According to the OCA, while there was no substantial evidence to prove that respondents received money from Clemente's transactions, they should still be liable for simple misconduct for their association with Clemente.

The Court finds the recommendation of the OCA to be fully supported by the evidence on record, as well as applicable laws and jurisprudence.

Indeed, misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, wilful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence. Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple. A person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the additional elements to qualify the misconduct as grave. Grave misconduct necessarily includes the lesser offense of simple misconduct. 5

Both the Investigating Judge and the OCA correctly found that there was no substantial evidence establishing respondents' corruption or willful intent to violate the law. However, respondents remain liable for their association with Clemente and/or "meddling" in the dubious activities of Clemente. As aptly noted by Investigating Judge Ma-alat, court personnel "should exercise caution in associating with persons who appear to be engaged in "case fixing" and report said persons to the Executive Judge."6

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to NOTE and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator. Accordingly:

1. Respondent Zenaida T. Mustera, Court Stenographer III of Branch 11, Regional Trial Court of Ligao City, Albay is found GUILTY of simple misconduct and is imposed the penalty of a FINE equivalent to her one (1) month salary, which in view of her retirement from the service, is to be deducted from her accrued leave credits, if any, and;

2. Respondent Raul Hingco, Process Server of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court of Ligao City, Albay is found GUILTY of simple misconduct and is imposed the penalty of a FINE equivalent to his one (1) month salary, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. CHTAIc

SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., on official business.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 1-5.

2.Id. at p. 1.

3.Id. at 100.

4.Id. at 103-109.

5.Santos v. Rasalan, G.R. No. 155749, February 8, 2007, 515 SCRA 97, 103-104.

6.Rollo, p. 109.