FIRST DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 19-4944-P. December 7, 2021.]
MARIFE MANATAD, ET AL., complainants, vs.ANTONIA B. RIVERA,1COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 55, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 7, 2021which reads as follows: DETACa
"OCA IPI No. 19-4944-P — MARIFE MANATAD, ET AL.,complainants, versus ANTONIA B. RIVERA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 55, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, respondent.
These are complaints for Conduct Unbecoming a Court Employee filed by the complainants: Marife Manatad (Marife), Beverly Rosario (Beverly), Eric Panganiban (Eric), Jeffrey Panganiban (Jeffrey), Charina Soria 2 (Charina), Aubrey Bismonte 3 (Aubrey), Wency Bariso (Wency), Queen Ellaine Bariso 4 (Queen), and Armando Azuela (Armando) against respondent Antonia B. Rivera (Antonia). Antonia serves as Court Stenographer III in Branch 55 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila. 5 At the time material to this case, she and the complainants were neighbors in Citihomes Subdivision in Imus City, Cavite.
The complaints stemmed from their squabbles, which also resulted to the filing of criminal cases by Antonia against some of the herein complainants and are presently pending before the trial courts. Charina, Queen, and Aubrey are the defendants in criminal cases for unjust vexation, grave oral defamation and malicious mischief filed solely by Antonia. On the other hand, Marife, Jeffrey, Beverly, along with Charina and Queen, are the defendants in a criminal case for attempted homicide filed by Antonia and her sister, Erna Buo Tan (Erna).
Charina narrated in her complaint-affidavit 6 that Antonia would always threaten them and boast about her position in the Supreme Court. She also alleged that Antonia would always take pictures of her 13-year old son, Wency, who was manning their small barbecue business, causing trauma on the latter. Whenever Antonia would pass by her house and chance upon her and her companions laughing, Antonia would assume they were laughing at her expense or were insulting her. 7
Charina further claimed that Antonia and her husband would always get angry whenever something was blocking the path of their vehicle. Antonia's husband would blast his horn until the obstruction was removed. In April 2019, Antonia caused a scene when she arrived home to find that her parking area was blocked by two motorcycles parked in front of Charina's house. Antonia threatened to have them arrested and sent to jail if the motorcycles were not removed. Charina was only able to remove one of the motorcycles because the owner of the other motorcycle was not around. Later, Antonia's sister, Erna, arrived and a brawl immediately ensued. This brought about the attempted homicide case filed against Charina and the others by Antonia and Erna. 8
Marife, the daughter-in-law of Charina, alleged that she frequented the house of the latter to help in selling barbecue. She corroborated the story that Antonia would take pictures of Charina's 13-year-old son who manned the barbecue stand, which Antonia later petitioned the closure of. Allegedly, as well, from the time after the heated incident in April 2019 took place, Antonia would utter within Marife's earshot that she would go to jail and that she and the other complainants were facing one case after another. Marife claimed the attempted homicide case had taken a toll on her studies. 9
Queen likewise stated in her complaint that Antonia had always invoked her work in the Supreme Court against her and the other complainants and the fact that they were mere lessees inside the subdivision and therefore had no right to raise any complaint against Antonia. Queen further narrated that at the time when Antonia confronted her and her partner, Jeffrey, about the latter's motorcycle being parked near Antonia's vehicle, Antonia allegedly called her pokpok, puta, and malandi. 10
Beverly, the niece of Charina, claimed that the attempted homicide case against her was without merit as she only tried to pacify the people directly involved in the incident. Furthermore, the case had given Beverly anxieties which affected her search for work. She also alleged that whenever she would encounter Antonia, the latter would angrily size her up and would always brag about her position in the Supreme Court. 11
Jeffrey, the common-law spouse of Queen, narrated that he used to live in Citihomes Subdivision in Imus City, Cavite. Antonia used to broadcast that he was a criminal, that she filed several cases against him, and that the police would eventually arrest him. According to Jeffrey, Antonia filed a complaint against him before the barangay for unjust vexation and oral defamation, even if the subject matter of the complaint only concerned an unleashed dog. Jeffrey further recounted that he would frequently return to his former rented house in Citihomes Subdivision to feed his pet chickens that were left behind. One time, however, Antonia went out of her house, inspected her car, and ordered her son to call for the barangay authorities. Jeffrey thereafter learned that a police blotter report was filed against him, stating that he caused the scratches on the car of Antonia. Jeffrey denied these charges and pointed out that the scratches on Antonia's car were caused by the children playing near it and that, in fact, the parents of these children paid to have the scratches fixed. 12
For her part, Aubrey recounted that her misunderstanding with Antonia began when Charina invited her to her house on Christmas Eve in 2018. While they, together with Queen and some other guests, were having fun with translating Visayan terms into Tagalog, Antonia took it as a slight against her physical attributes. 13
Aubrey further recounted that it was in March 2019 when Antonia had another misunderstanding with Charina and Queen about the former's barbecue stand. Aubrey corroborated the stories of the other complainants that Antonia took photographs of Charina's son while he was manning the barbecue stand. Antonia then had a blotter report written up against Charina and Queen about the said small barbecue business. Aubrey later found out that Antonia also filed charges against her for grave oral defamation, unjust vexation and malicious mischief. Since then, whenever she would happen to walk past Antonia, the latter would utter that Aubrey and the others would go to jail. Antonia also allegedly told her that she would spend her husband's money to put Charina in jail. Aubrey repeatedly begged Antonia's mercy because she was only included in the charges out of her mere closeness with Charina and Queen. Whenever the three of them would happen to gather outside their houses and happily converse, Antonia would allegedly take pictures of them. 14
Three persons who were not indicted as defendants in any of the criminal cases filed by Antonia also executed their own complaint-affidavits.
Eric alleged that he used to live with his cousin, Jeffrey, and his common-law spouse, Queen, in their cousin's house in Citihomes Subdivision in Imus City, Cavite. They decided to leave the place because Antonia, her sister, and nephew were disturbing their peace by spreading lies and wrongful accusations against them. Antonia's nephew also allegedly threatened to kill Jeffrey. Eric recounted that Antonia got angry with Jeffrey in October 2017 when he parked his tricycle near her vehicle. Antonia was concerned the tricycle might damage her vehicle. When Eric inspected the parking space, Antonia allegedly told them that they had no right over the property where they were staying as they were merely leasing the same and were not members of the homeowners' association. She also bragged about working in the Supreme Court. Eric claimed he told Antonia that she should talk to his cousin, the owner of the house they were staying in, who would arrive the next Monday. The next day, however, he, Jeffrey, and Queen were surprised when they were summoned before the homeowners' association office upon Antonia's complaint that Eric threatened to have her killed by his uncle. Eric claimed that they were forced to make peace with Antonia and ask for her forgiveness since they did not want their work to be affected. 15
Armando, on the other hand, had a disagreement with Antonia on account of a shaded parking garage that she had built in front of her house and which encroached on part of the public road. Antonia allegedly did not fulfill her promise to have said structure removed. Armando stated that it burdened the other neighbors from coming and going to their own units, especially when using their own vehicles. He also complained about the pipe connected to Antonia's sink which carried trash that would sometimes end up in front of Armando's house. Despite talking to Antonia's househelp about it, the problem still persisted. 16
Finally, Wency, the 13-year-old son of Charina, also executed an affidavit where he affirmed being photographed by Antonia whenever he would sell barbecue outside their house. He also recounted that Antonia blamed his family for burning trash in front of her house, when in truth, it was Antonia and her househelp who frequently did so. Wency also affirmed the statements made by the other complainants that Antonia resented it every time they would merrily gather outside their houses, in that it would always result to them being summoned in the barangay for some complaint. Wency also recounted that Antonia would always tell them that they had no right to complain about her or to even talk to her because she works in the Supreme Court and that she is knowledgeable about the law. 17
In her Comment, 18 Antonia vehemently denied the charges against her, vouching that she has lived uprightly in both her professional and private lives. She denied ever bragging about being an employee of the judiciary or having used any influence in dealing with another. Antonia emphasized that this is the first time in her 25-year career as a court stenographer that a complaint was made against her. She insisted that the complaints lacked merit and were merely lodged against her in retaliation to the criminal cases she and her sister filed against the complainants. 19
Antonia explained further that for the complaints of Charina, Queen, and Aubrey, it involved incidents wherein she was maligned and humiliated. She decided to act legally and went through the proper procedure before the barangay and the Office of the City Prosecutor. She pointed out that the investigating prosecutor found probable cause to file charges against Charina, Queen, and Aubrey and the cases are now being heard before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1 in Imus City, Cavite. 20
In the same manner, the complaints of Jeffrey, Eric, Armando, Wency, Charina, and Beverly, according to Antonia, were mere counter-charges to the attempted homicide case she and her sister filed against some of them. She also pointed out that the investigating prosecutor found probable cause to file the said case against Jeffrey, Charina, Queen, Beverly, and Marife, and it is now also being heard before the MTCC in Imus City, Cavite. 21
In its Evaluation, Report and Recommendation 22 dated January 29, 2021, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the administrative complaint against Antonia be dismissed for lack of merit. The OCA, however, recommended that Antonia be nonetheless reminded to be more circumspect in her dealings with people whether inside or outside the court. 23
The OCA noted that most of the issues raised in the complaints are factual in nature and are also the same issues raised in the criminal cases filed by Antonia against the complainants before the MTC. It also found the complainants' testimonies to be self-serving and unworthy of credence, absent any other independent and impartial witnesses that would corroborate and support their claims. On the other hand, the cases Antonia filed against the complainants appeared neither baseless nor ill-motivated as the prosecution found probable cause to file the cases in court.
The OCA, however, reminded Antonia to restrain herself from engaging into any fights or bickering with her neighbors, keeping in mind the high standard of behavior and decorum demanded of court personnel.
The findings and recommendation of the OCA are well-taken.
Jurisprudence dictates that in administrative proceedings, complainants bear the burden of proving the allegations in their complaints by substantial evidence, 24 or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 25 That standard of substantial evidence is satisfied only when there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, although such evidence may not be overwhelming or even preponderant. 26
In this case, the Court agrees with the findings of the OCA that the complainants have failed to adduce sufficient and concrete evidence, besides their own self-serving complaint-affidavits, to substantiate their accusations against Antonia. Notably, six out of the herein nine complainants are facing criminal cases filed by Antonia and her sister and which are pending in the lower courts. The remaining three complainants who were not indicted were nonetheless far from being disinterested witnesses who could have lent credence to the allegations of complainants. Wency and Eric were related to Charina and Jeffrey, respectively, who were defendants in both the criminal cases filed by Antonia alone and by Antonia and her sister. Armando, on the other hand, apparently had an altogether different beef with Antonia than the ones raised by the rest of the complainants. His complaint-affidavit was bereft of any indication that he was privy to any of the incidents narrated in the complaint-affidavits of the other complainants. So, too, his own complaints against Antonia were not supported by any other piece of evidence.
Furthermore, the complaints 27 before the barangay and medico-legal reports 28 submitted by Charina and Jeffrey likewise failed to corroborate the allegations of the complainants. All that the barangay complaint stated about Antonia was "Nagsisigaw si Antonia Rivera tungkol sa motor."29 On the other hand, quite tellingly, the other barangay complaints, which narrated the alleged brawl that took place in April 2019, neither named nor indicated Antonia as a participant in any way. 30
Having failed to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which their claims are based, Antonia is not even obliged to prove her exception or defense. 31
In any event, the Court affirms the reminder of the OCA to Antonia to always be very circumspect in how she conducts herself inside and outside the office. The Court has been firm and consistent about this. It matters not that a court employee's act was not work-related. Any scandalous behavior or any act that may erode the people's esteem for the judiciary is unbecoming of an employee. 32 The Court has repeatedly declared that the conduct of the men and women in the judiciary must, at all times, be characterized by uprightness, honesty, propriety, courtesy and decorum. It is by this exacting standard that the demeanor, in public or private life, of court personnel will be measured. 33
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Antonia B. Rivera, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Manila is DISMISSED for lack of merit. She is, however, reminded to be more circumspect in all her public and private dealings.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also Antonia Buo Rivera a.k.a. "Neng" and Antonina B. Rivera in some parts of the rollo.
2. Also Charina Soria Lacson in some parts of the rollo.
3. Also Aubrey Besmonte and Aubrey Esmonte in some parts of the rollo.
4. Also Queen Elaine Soria Bariso in some parts of the rollo.
5.Rollo, p. 125.
6.Id. at 11-12.
7.Id. at 11.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 2.
10.Id. at 47.
11.Id. at 5.
12.Id. at 22.
13.Id. at 30.
14.Id. at 30-32.
15.Id. at 8-9.
16.Id. at 39.
17.Id. at 44.
18.Id. at 59-62.
19.Id. at 59-60.
20.Id. at 59.
21.Id. at 60.
22.Id. at 125-130.
23.Id. at 130.
24.Velasquez v. Rimas, OCA IPI No. 18-4864-P, May 14, 2021 (Unsigned Resolution).
25.Re: Letter-Complaint of Atty. Alberto C. Yap against Atty. Lourdes C. Perfecto, Clerk of Court of the Second Division, Supreme Court, A.M. No. 17-09-10-SC, April 10, 2019 (Unsigned Resolution).
26.Basea-Padulla v. Darantinao I, OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3867-P, October 12, 2020 (Unsigned Resolution).
27.Rollo, pp. 18 and 23-24.
28.Id. at 19 and 28.
29.Id. at 24.
30. See id. at 18 and 23.
31. See Spouses Arambulo v. Sepidoza, OCA IPI No. 19-4892-P, February 17, 2021 (Unsigned Resolution).
32.Bonono, Jr. v. Sunit, A.M. No. P-12-3073, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 1, 6-7.
33. See Re: Willful Failure to Pay Just Debts Against Mr. Melquiades A. Briones, A.M. No. 2007-11-SC, August 10, 2007, 529 SCRA 689, 690.