FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-19-3987. August 28, 2019.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4036-P]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs.EVELYN G. MONTOYO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BAGO CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, BRANCH 62, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 28, 2019which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-19-3987 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4036-P] (Office of the Court Administrator v. Evelyn G. Montoyo, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Bago City, Negros Occidental, Branch 62)
This administrative case stemmed from a Complaint 1 dated November 29, 2012 filed by Aida Lobaton Ambrona (Ambrona) against Evelyn G. Montoyo (Montoyo), Court Stenographer III of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bago City, Negros Occidental, Branch 62 before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for violation of Republic Act No. 3019. 2
Facts of the Case
Ambrona narrated that she and her husband bought a parcel of land described as Lot 456-D-16, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. EP-170 3 from the heirs of the late Beato Craco through a Declaration of Heirship with Definite Deed of Sale. 4 They were not able to register the property in their name because the owner's duplicate copy was missing. 5
On June 16, 2008, Ambrona and her daughter, Mary Jane Ambrona Castor (Castor), went to the Office of the Register of Deeds of Bago City to obtain an owner's duplicate copy. Former Deputy Register of Deeds Jinky Pabon referred them to Montoyo, who advised them to file a petition in court for the reconstitution of the missing title. Ambrona further said that she also sought Montoyo's help for the transfer of the title of another property, Lot 456-D-17, in their name situated in Barangay Napoles, Bago City, Negros Occidental. 6
On June 17, 2008, Castor gave Montoyo P10,000.00 and P1,000.00 as payment for attorney's fees and service fees, respectively. Montoyo assured Ambrona that she will file a petition in court for the reconstitution of TCT No. EP-170. Again, on June 19, 2008, Castor handed another P5,000.00 to Montoyo for the notarization and publication costs of the petition. 7
On June 22, 2008, Montoyo demanded from Ambrona the following amounts: P10,000.00 to be used as grease money for the Bureau of Internal Revenue; P5,500.00 for notarization and additional publication; P1,500.00 for the judge hearing the case; and P500.00 as service fees. 8
On December 7, 2008, Ambrona gave P3,000.00 to Montoyo to be allocated as follows: P1,500.00 for the judge hearing the case; P1,000.00 for the court employee who schedules the hearing of the case; and P500.00 for service fees. 9
On July 20, 2009, Judge Frances V Guanzon (Judge Guanzon) issued an Order 10 granting the petition and directing the issuance of a second owner's copy of TCT No. EP-170. 11
On July 31, 2009, Montoyo asked Ambrona for an additional amount of P3,500.00 for the payment of estate tax, which was sent to Montoyo through Cebuana Lhuiller with Control No. 40824073109922T. 12
Thereafter, Ambrona made several follow-ups to Montoyo, who promised to deliver the said title, but the latter's promises were reneged. The last time that Ambrona met Montoyo was on June 6, 2011, when the latter asked for an additional P13,500.00 for the payment of capital gains tax. 13
Ambrona claimed that she gave Montoyo a total amount of P176,000.00 for the said transactions, which was personally given to the latter, except for the one sent through Cebuana Lhuiller. Unfortunately, Montoyo failed to convey the reconstituted owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. EP-170. 14
Before filing the instant administrative case, Ambrona sought the advice of Judge Guanzon and the latter's Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Mary Emilie Templado-Villanueva (Atty. Villanueva), who instructed her to retrieve all her documents from Montoyo. Upon demand, Montoyo returned the said documents, but without any receipts from the BIR and the Register of Deeds. 15
In her Manifestation and Motion with Comment, 16 Montoyo alleged that Ambrona was referred to her by an employee of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Bago City. She said that she merely advised Ambrona to file a petition in court for the reconstitution of the missing title and also recommended a lawyer from Bago City to assist her in the preparation thereof. The petition was eventually filed in court and was granted sometime in 2009. Montoyo denied receiving money from Ambrona, except for the amount of P3,500.00 that was sent to her via Cebuana Lhuiller to cover the publication cost of the Declaration of Heirship with Definite Deed of Sale. Montoyo attributed the non-registration of Lot No. 456-D-16 to Ambrona's failure to comply with the requirement of the Register of Deeds. She also believed that the complaint was filed upon the instigation of Atty. Villanueva who personally prepared the affidavits of Ambrona and Castor during office hours using the court's office supplies in full view of the court's personnel. 17
In a Resolution 18 dated December 9, 2015, the Court directed Executive Judge Anita Guanzon-Chua (Judge Guanzon-Chua) of the RTC of Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, to conduct an investigation, report and recommendation on this matter.
Subsequently, Judge Guanzon-Chua submitted her Investigation Report 19 dated July 11, 2016, stating that, since both parties failed to submit additional evidence, she deemed it best to see the entire record of Cadastral No. 09-02 involving Lot 456-D-16 covered by TCT No. EP-170. 20 Judge Guanzon-Chua found that Montoyo tried to mislead the Court, because an examination of the records showed that what was filed was a petition for the issuance of a second owner's copy and not a case for reconstitution. She also found that there were two transactions between Ambrona and Montoyo: the first one was relative to the issuance of the title for Lot 456-D-17, wherein Montoyo was able to deliver the necessary title, and the second one involved Lot 456-D-16 covered by TCT No. EP-170, where Montoyo failed to fulfill her commitment despite the granting of the court of the petition for the issuance of a second owner's copy. 21 Judge Guanzon-Chua noted the fact that Montoyo imposed upon herself the obligation to process the requirements of the Register of Deeds when the same was outside the scope of her function as court stenographer. Judge Guanzon-Chua said that the actuations of the Montoyo showed that she actively participated in the preparation of the petition and processing of the case. 22
The Report and Recommendation of the OCA
In a Memorandum 23 dated June 6, 2017, the OCA found Montoyo guilty of grave misconduct. The OCA recommended the re-docketing of this case as a regular administrative matter, and since the penalty of dismissal is no longer possible, as Montoyo has already been dropped from the rolls, it was also recommended that she be meted the accessory penalties of dismissal. 24
The Ruling of the Court
The Court adopts and approves the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
The Court has consistently held that the sole act of receiving money from litigants, whatever the reason may be, is antithesis to being a court employee. 25 Court personnel, regardless of position or rank, are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the strict standards of integrity and morality because the acts of court personnel reflect on the judiciary. This Court has held that the court personnel's act of soliciting or receiving money from litigants constitutes grave misconduct. 26
In the present case, there is sufficient evidence that Montoyo committed grave misconduct when she solicited and received money from Ambrona, on the pretext that she will assist the latter in filing a petition for the reconstitution of the missing owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. EP-170 and facilitate the release of the same.
In doing so, Montoyo also violated Section 2, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel 27 which provides that "[c]ourt personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any or explicit or implicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions."
Clearly, Montoyo's act of demanding and receiving money from Ambrona compromised the judiciary's good name. The Court has consistently emphasized that it will not hesitate to rid its ranks of undesirables who undermine its efforts towards an effective and efficient administration of justice, thus tainting its image in the eyes of the public. 28 In Mendoza v. Tiongson, 29 the Court held that:
What brings our judicial system into disrepute are often the actuations of a few erring court personnel peddling influence to party-litigants, creating the impression that decisions can be bought and sold, ultimately resulting in the disillusionment of the public. This Court has never wavered in its vigilance in eradicating the so-called "bad eggs" in the judiciary. And whenever warranted by the gravity of the offense, the supreme penalty of dismissal in an administrative case is meted to erring personnel. 30
Following Section 50 (A) (3), Rule 10 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, 31 grave misconduct is punishable with the penalty of dismissal from service even for the first offense. Since the penalty of dismissal from service is no longer imposable because Montoyo had earlier been declared dropped from the rolls, the accessory penalties of dismissal should be imposed upon her: (a) cancellation of civil service eligibility; (b) forfeiture of retirement and other benefits, except accrued leave credits, if any; and (c) perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government agency or instrumentality, including any government-owned and controlled corporation or government financial institution. 32
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Evelyn G. Montoyo, former Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court of Bago City, Negros Occidental, Branch 62 GUILTY of grave misconduct and would have been DISMISSED from service had she not earlier been declared dropped from the rolls. Accordingly, her civil service eligibility is hereby CANCELLED, her retirement and other benefits, except accrued leave credits, are FORFEITED, and she is PERPETUALLYDISQUALIFIED from re-employment in any government agency or instrumentality, including any government-owned and controlled corporation or government financial institution.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-3.
2. "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act."
3.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
4.Id. at 7-9.
5. See id. at 1.
6. See id.
7.Id. at 1-2.
8.Id. at 2.
9.Id.
10. Not attached to the rollo.
11.Rollo, p. 2.
12.Id. at 10; see also id. at 2.
13.Id. at 2.
14.Id. at 2-3.
15.Id. at 3.
16.Id. at 18-20.
17.Id. at 18-19.
18.Id. at 24-25.
19.Id. at 33-38.
20.Id. at 35.
21.Id. at 35-36.
22.Id. at 36-37.
23.Id. at 40-45.
24.Id. at 44-45.
25. See Cabauatan v. Uvero, A.M. No. P-15-3329, November 6, 2017.
26.Id.
27. A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, approved on June 1, 2004.
28.Judaya v. Balbona, 810 Phil. 375, 383 (2017).
29. 333 Phil. 508 (1996), as cited in Calabines v. Gnilo, 547 Phil. 175, 201 (2007).
30.Id. at 510.
31. Approved on July 3, 2017.
32.Judaya v. Balbona, supra note 13.