THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-17-3727. July 24, 2017.]
MERLINDA N. YBARLEY, complainant,vs. LILIAN G. SANSON, LEGAL RESEARCHER I/OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, BRANCH 2, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES [MTCC], ZAMBOANGA CITY, ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 24, 2017, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-17-3727 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-4479-P] (Merlinda N. Ybarley vs. Lilian G. Sanson, Legal Researcher I/Officer-in-Charge, Branch 2, Municipal Trial Court in Cities [MTCC], Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Norte). — For resolution is the complaint 1 filed by Merlinda N. Ybarley against respondent Lilian G. Sanson, Legal Researcher I/Officer-in-Charge, Branch 2, Municipal Trial Court in Cities [MTCC], Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Norte, for Conduct Unbecoming a Court Employee and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
The Facts
Complainant is the prevailing party in Civil Case No. SCC-157-09 for Collection of Sum of Money against SSGT Anacleto Manuel ("SSGT. Manuel") pursuant to a Decision dated August 18, 2009 rendered by then Presiding Judge Ivan C. Mendoza, Jr. of MTCC Branch 2, Zamboanga City. The Decision ordered SSGT. Manuel to pay complainant the amount of P17,350.00 with legal interest of one percent (1%) monthly beginning August 18, 2009 until full payment.
On October 29, 2012, respondent allegedly issued a certification for full settlement of the case in favor of SSGT. Manuel, supposedly having received the amount of P11,400.00. This supposedly did not conform to the amount stated in the Writ of Execution dated May 18, 2010, the Alias Writ of Execution dated November 26, 2010, Certificate of Finality dated May 17, 2013, and Return of Execution dated May 24, 2013. 2 CHTAIc
On July 15, 2015, complainant went to the office of MTCC Branch 2, Zamboanga City and inquired from respondent if SSGT. Manuel had already given the full amount of his remaining balance of the payment. To her surprise, respondent allegedly told complainant in Visayan dialect, "GAMAY SA KWARTA, SAMOK, SAPAKON NOON TAKA MAKATILAW KA" which complainant claims to mean "it is a small amount of money, you['re] annoying, I will slap you, you will see." 3
Thereafter, respondent allegedly said, "Papuntahin mo dito sa office si Anacleto Manuel kasi hindi na siya bumalik." To which complainant answered, "Hindi yon babalik sa office kas[i] binigyan nyo na nang certification of full settlement at certification of finality of judgement samantalang hindi pa naman settle[d] kami, ma'am." Complainant then requested for a computation of SSGT. Manuel's outstanding balance, but instead of acceding to her request, respondent got angry with her. 4
Complainant claims that respondent would always get angry with her whenever she verifies her case with the office and even told her on July 21, 2015 that, "Ang kaso mo[ ]wala na matagal na naming tinapon at sinunog. Oo totoo talaga sinunog na lahat wala na kaming copy [ng] court order [o] decision mo." 5
In her Counter-Affidavit, 6 respondent admitted that complainant was awarded the amount of P17,350.00 in the Decision dated August 18, 2009 and that a writ of execution was thereafter issued in her favor. Thus, the Branch Sheriff served the writ of execution on SSGT. Manuel, who subsequently made several payments in settlement of his obligation. 7
On October 29, 2012, respondent acted as Officer-In-Charge during the absence of the Clerk of Court, Maria Lourdes B. Bañez. She attended to SSGT. Manuel, who arrived at respondent's office to settle his obligation and requested that the balance of his obligations be computed, taking into consideration the amounts he had previously paid. 8
Respondent called and consulted with the Branch Sheriff, Inocencio Liwasan, who told her to compute the balance based on the records and receive the money from SSGT. Manuel. Accordingly, respondent determined that SSGT. Manuel had a total balance of P9,927.19, inclusive of sheriff's fees. She informed SSGT. Manuel that there might be other sheriff's lawful fees since the writ of execution was also served in Isabela City and in Labangan, Zamboanga Del Sur. 9
SSGT. Manuel requested respondent to receive P11,400.00 as full payment and to issue a certification stating such in support of the administrative cases filed against him by complainant. He insisted on his request because it was very difficult and dangerous for him to travel from his camp to Zamboanga. Accordingly, respondent received the money from SSGT. Manuel and turned over the same to the Clerk of Court the next working day. 10
Thereafter, complainant went to respondent's office several times but refused to receive the judgment money, claiming that SSGT. Manuel owed her more than P37,000.00. Complainant then insisted that respondent withdraw the Certificate of Full Payment which was issued to SSGT. Manuel, but respondent refused and explained that the amount was computed based on the records of the case. 11 EATCcI
Respondent asserts that she has neither treated complainant in any inappropriate manner nor committed any conduct unbecoming a court employee and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service towards the latter or any transacting client in the office. She denied saying any of the words which she had allegedly uttered against complainant. 12
Instead, respondent merely tried to explain to complainant that all records of cases which have been terminated or settled which are five years or older are to be destroyed by burning based on this Court's directive. Since complainant's case was already settled and was already approaching five years since the decision was rendered, then it might be included in the directive. Still, respondent denied that the records have actually been disposed by burning since the cases were still being sorted out by the staff. 13
Finally, respondent alleges that the present complaint is part of complainant's harassment since the latter's complaints against SSGT. Manuel had already been dismissed by the Ombudsman. 14
In her Reply-Affidavit, complainant averred that the computation of payment and interest which she presented was correct, considering that the same was admitted in SSGT. Manuel's Counter-Affidavit in the case she filed before the Ombudsman. She also asserted that she refused to receive the P11,400.00 because respondent insisted that she sign an acknowledgment receipt certifying full payment of SSGT. Manuel's obligation, when there was still a balance of P716.12 which SSGT. Manuel later on paid on October 6, 2013. 15
Complainant also attached the affidavits of Roselyn C. Sinit and Emma E. Mendoza to support her claim that she was maltreated by respondent every time she followed up her case. 16 Sinit corroborated the assertion that respondent verbally abused complainant in Visayan dialect when they visited respondent's office on July 15, 2015 and that on July 21, 2015, respondent told complainant that her case was already thrown out and burned. 17 As for Mendoza, she narrated an incident which happened sometime in October 2013 wherein respondent raised her voice and shouted at complainant. 18
Pursuant to the OCA's recommendation, the Court referred the complaint to the Executive Judge of the MTCC, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Norte, for investigation, report and recommendation in its Resolution dated September 26, 2016. 19
Recommendation of the Executive Judge
In a Report 20 dated February 13, 2017, the Executive Judge recommended that respondent be held liable for light offense and be given a penalty of Reprimand, to wit:
In the instant case, Respondent Lilian G. Sanson, Legal Researcher 1, MTCC, Branch 2, Zamboanga City, issued the Certificate of Full Payment to defendant Anacleto Manuel in Civil Case No. SCC-157-09 as next-in-rank employee in view of the absence of Branch Clerk of Court Ms. Maria Lourdes Bañez and considering the defendant's plea. However, there was no written memorandum designating her as Officer-In-Charge, Office of the Branch Clerk of Court was issued by the Court [sic]. Hence, she can be held liable only of [sic] a light offense. This is the first time that an administrative case has been filed against her and considering that she has been in the judiciary for more than fifteen (15) years, the undersigned respectfully recommends that she be punished by a [sic]Reprimand only. DHITCc
It can be inferred from the fact[s] of the case that complainant Ybarley, has been following up her case before MTCC, Branch 2, from the time of its filing until the filing of the instant case, but she refused to receive the total amount of P12,400.00 which is now with the Office of the Branch Clerk of Court, MTCC, Branch 2, Zamboanga City. Most of the time, respondent Lilian G. Sanson attended to her, and she (complainant) did not listen on [sic] her explanation and advice, respondent may have lost her temper. There being no intention to insult or malign the complainant, the above-named respondent can be held liable of [sic] discourtesy in the Course of Official Function only. Hence, the undersigned hereby recommends that she be punished with a Reprimand only. 21
According to the Report, respondent's act of issuing a Certification of Full Payment to SSGT. Manuel was improper considering that there was no written memorandum giving her authority to issue any certification at that time and since there were still other expenses incurred in the implementation of the Writ of Execution which were yet to be determined then.
As for complainant's allegations that respondent uttered certain improper words against her, the Executive Judge found that respondent failed to thoroughly refute the same. While respondent's witness, Nasser Ismael, testified in her favor that he did not hear her say such words, it was noted that Ismael admitted that he is not conversant in the Visayan dialect. Moreover, her other witnesses also denied having any knowledge as to what transpired between complainant and respondent since they were not present during said incident.
Taking into consideration that respondent has been in the judiciary for fifteen years and it is the first time that an administrative complaint was filed against her, the Executive Judge determined that respondent may be deemed liable for Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties, which is a light offense, and a penalty of reprimand is sufficient.
The Issue
The only issue for resolution in this case is whether or not respondent is administratively liable for Conduct Unbecoming a Court Employee and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
The Court's Ruling
The recommendation of the Executive Judge in her Report is well-taken. However, We resolve to modify the same after a judicious review of the records of the case.
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint. 22
In the case at bar, complainant accused respondent of having verbally abused her and having wrongfully issued a Certificate of Full Payment in favor of SSGT. Manuel. Complainant further claimed that respondent insulted and ill-treated her whenever she would follow up the status of her case. cEaSHC
While respondent presented testimonies of witnesses who denied having seen or heard her say malicious words against complainant, the Executive Judge was correct to point out that she failed to fully refute the allegations made by complainant. Moreover, complainant also submitted affidavits of witnesses testifying on several instances wherein respondent was hostile against complainant. These testimonies were not refuted by respondent. Instead, respondent merely made a general denial of the allegations made against her.
Based on the foregoing, We agree with the recommendation of the Executive Judge that respondent is guilty of Simple Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties, which is considered a light offense under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) and is punishable by reprimand.
However, respondent was also charged for acting outside of her official duties. As found by the Executive Judge, respondent not only made an erroneous computation of SSGT. Manuel's outstanding balance, but she also issued a certification of full payment even though there was no official memorandum designating or appointing her as officer-in-charge for that day. Thus, she had no authority to issue any certification, which is the duty of a Branch Clerk of Court.
Respondent's acts clearly violate Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, 23 the pertinent provisions of which read:
Sec. 1. Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence, and to commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.
Sec. 2. Court personnel shall carry out their responsibilities as public servants in as courteous a manner as possible.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 6. Court personnel shall expeditiously enforce rules and implement orders of the court within the limits of their authority.
Under the RRACCS, this constitutes the less grave offense of Violation of Existing Civil Service Law and Rules of Serious Nature, which is punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense.
Considering, however, the finding of the Executive Judge that this is respondent's first administrative offense in her fifteen years of service in the judiciary, We find that these factors are sufficient to mitigate her liability. 24
Time and again, this Court has emphasized that "the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the women and men who work in the judiciary, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel." Court employees, as officers and representatives of the Court, are entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the high moral standards of the Court "to preserve the good name and integrity of justice." 25 Thus, court employees, such as respondent, are expected to act with utmost propriety and decorum so as to earn and keep the public's respect for and confidence in the judicial service. 26 CTIEac
WHEREFORE, respondent Lilian G. Sanson is hereby found GUILTY of Simple Discourtesy in the Course of Official Duties and Violation of Existing Civil Service Law and Rules of Serious Nature. Accordingly, she is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day. Respondent is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2.Id. at 1.
3.Id. at 1.
4.Id. at 1.
5.Id. at 2.
6.Id. at 56-62.
7.Id. at 57.
8.Id. at 57-58.
9.Id. at 58-59.
10.Id. at 59.
11.Id. at 59.
12.Id. at 60-61.
13.Id. at 60-61.
14.Id. at 61.
15.Id. at 98-116.
16.Id. at 112-113.
17.Id. at 112.
18.Id. at 113.
19.Id. at 121-123.
20.Id. at 1-16.
21.Id. at 15-16.
22.Aldecoa-Delorino v. Abellanosa, A.M. No. P-08-2472 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2559-P), October 19, 2010, 633 SCRA 448, 462.
23. A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC effective June 1, 2004.
24.Office of the Court Administrator v. Montalla, A.M. No. P-06-2269 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2336-P), December 20, 2006, 511 SCRA 328.
25.Acebido v. Halasan, A.M. No. P-10-2803, March 30, 2011, 646 SCRA 593, 596.
26.Orfila v. Quiroz, A.M. No. P-97-1234, August 18, 1997, 277 SCRA 493, 497-498.