FIRST DIVISION
MAGTANGGOL
GABRIEL,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
CA-99-9-P
April 30, 2003 - versus -
ATTY.
VIRGINIA C.
ABELLA, DIVISION CLERK OF COURT OF THE 17TH DIVISION;
OLIMPIA V. TRAMBULO,
RECORDS OFFICER III, RECEIVING SECTION;
FERDINAND HERAMIS,
CLERK, CIVIL CASE SECTION; AND ALBERTO TARIGA, JR.,
VERIFICATION CLERK,
ALL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents.
R E S O L U T I
O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
On July 2, 1998,
complainant Magtanggol Gabriel filed an affidavit-complaint[1]
before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Atty.
Virginia
C. Abella, Division Clerk of Court of the 17th Division; Olimpia V.
Trambulo,
Records Officer III, Receiving Section; and Ferdinand Heramis, Clerk,
Civil
Cases Section - all from the Court of Appeals - charging them with
grave
misconduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant alleged
that he is the Vice-President of Manila Metal Container Corporation,
plaintiff-appellant
in CA-G.R. CV. No. 46153 entitled, "Manila Metal Container Corporation
(MMCC), Plaintiff-Appellant versus Philippine National Bank,
Defendant-Appellee;
Reynaldo C. Tolentino, Intervenor-Appellant," filed with the Court of
Appeals.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 15, 1998, upon
motion of intervenor Reynaldo C. Tolentino, the 17th Division of the
Court
of Appeals issued a Resolution substituting said intervenor as
plaintiff
and granting the withdrawal of appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 46153. On
May 27, 1998, complainant filed a motion for reconsideration of the
aforesaid
Resolution. On the same date, intervenor Tolentino also filed a
motion
for reconsideration praying for the issuance of an entry of judgment.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Based on the above
motion of intervenor Tolentino, respondent Atty. Virginia C. Abella
prepared
and issued an entry of judgment in CA-G.R. CV. No. 46153, despite the
pendency
of the motion for reconsideration filed by complainant on May 27,
1998.
Thus, complainant went to the Receiving Section of the Court of Appeals
and requested for a certification that his counsel filed a motion for
reconsideration
of the Resolution dated May 15, 1998. However, respondent Olimpia
V. Trambulo refused to give him the certification and, in a loud and
belligerent
voice, said that she did not have custody of the records of the case.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant further
alleged that respondent Ferdinand Heramis of the Civil Cases Section
was
negligent in recording and handling the motion for reconsideration he
filed.
When confronted by complainant’s counsel, respondent Heramis denied
having
received any motion for reconsideration from plaintiff-appellant.
Later, he admitted that he actually received the said motion for
reconsideration
from the Receiving Section and recorded the same in the Civil Cases
Docket
Book.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her answer to the
complaint, respondent Abella averred that when she prepared the entry
of
judgment in question on June 18, 1998, she strictly followed the
Revised
Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals and Section 10, Rule 51 of the
1997
Rules of Civil Procedure. She prepared the said entry of judgment
only after (1) the reglementary period to file a motion for
reconsideration
has elapsed; (2) a proper verification from Mr. Alberto Tariga, Jr. of
the Judicial Records Division that there was no motion for
reconsideration
filed; and (3) Justice Corona Ibay-Somera, the ponente of the case,
made
a marginal note on intervenor Tolentino’s motion for reconsideration
that
"ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ENTERED". She was officially furnished a copy
of the plaintiff-appellant’s motion only on June 22, 1998, which she
promptly
reported to Justice Ibay-Somera.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent Trambulo,
on the other hand, denied that she was arrogant or belligerent when she
attended to complainant and his counsel. Her speaking in a loud
manner
was meant to emphasize the reason why she cannot issue the requested
certification,
owing to her failure to verify complainant’s motion for reconsideration
from the rollo of the case. Moreover, the said motion for
reconsideration
was properly received, recorded and delivered by her staff from the
Receiving
Section to the Civil Cases Section. Thus, any tampering of the
docket
book and the loss of complainant’s motion for reconsideration was
beyond
her control since it did not happen in her section.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent Heramis claimed
that when he received the motion for reconsideration filed by
plaintiff-appellant
from the Receiving Section, he immediately recorded it in the docket
book
of the Civil Cases Section. Afterwards, he placed the motion,
together
with the other motions received on that day, on top of the table of Mr.
Augusto Alba, the rollo clerk. He alleged that he only learned of
the loss of plaintiff-appellant’s motion for reconsideration after
complainant’s
counsel inquired about it.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This complaint was referred
to then Acting Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals (now retired
Associate
Justice of this Court) Arturo B. Buena for investigation, report and
recommendation.
Justice Buena in turn directed Atty. Elisa B. Pilar-Longalong,
Assistant
Clerk of Court, to conduct the investigation.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After the
investigation,
Atty. Pilar-Longalong found that respondent Atty. Abella exercised due
diligence before issuing the entry of judgment. She waited for
the
lapse of the reglementary period to file a motion for reconsideration
and
considered the mailing time allowance provided in Section 6, Rule 11 of
the Revised Internal Rules of the Court Appeals.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, Atty.
Pilar-Longalong found respondent Trambulo’s actions unjustified.
As Chief of the Receiving Section, she could have easily verified
whether
the motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiff-appellant was indeed
recorded in the Receiving Sections’ logbook. Furthermore, it
appears
from the record that while the intervenor’s motion for reconsideration
was stamped "received" by the Receiving Section, it was not recorded in
its logbook. Nevertheless, the record shows that the intervenor’s
motion was forwarded to the Judicial Records Division. Hence,
Atty.
Pilar-Longalong recommended that respondent Trambulo should exercise
closer
supervision over her personnel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, Atty. Pilar-Longalong
found that the testimony of respondent Heramis is contrary to what
appears
in the record. While he claimed that the plaintiff-appellant’s
motion
for reconsideration was recorded in the docket book on June 1, 1998,
the
index card of CA-G.R. CV No. 46153 in the possession of the rollo clerk
shows that the motion for reconsideration was entered only on June 5,
1998.
Moreover, since it was respondent Heramis who was last seen handing the
motion for reconsideration to the rollo clerk, he must bear the
responsibility
for its loss. His act of placing the motion on top of the table
of
Mr. Alba without asking the latter to acknowledge receipt thereof
constituted
negligence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 4, 1998,
Atty. Pilar-Longalong submitted her Report to Justice Buena with the
recommendation
that:
Premises considered,
it is respectfully recommended that:
1.
The case of grave misconduct against respondent Virginia C. Abella be
dismissed
for lack of merit;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2.
While respondent Olimpia V. Trambulo is not shown to have committed any
act constituting grave misconduct, nevertheless, she may be held liable
for discourtesy and willful refusal to issue the requested
certification
for which she may be reprimanded and sternly warned against a
repetition
of said or similar acts in the future. Likewise, the office may
consider
requiring her to henceforth exercise closer supervision over her
personnel;
institute remedial measure, if warranted, on the manner by which her
personnel
discharge their respective functions; and correct existing procedures
in
her Section to avoid the occurrence of similar incidents in the future;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3.
While respondent Ferdinand C. Heramis is not shown to have committed
any
act constituting grave misconduct either, nevertheless, he may be held
liable for negligence in the discharge of his official functions for
which
he may be imposed the penalty of one month suspension; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4.
As a necessary incident/consequence of the foregoing findings in the
case,
to:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a.
Require the personnel of the Civil Cases Section, specifically Messrs.
Augusto Alba and Reynaldo Faraon, although not respondents in the case,
to henceforth indicate in their index cards and logbooks the name of
filers
of the pleadings received by them;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b.
Admonish Mr. Alberto Tarigan (should read "Tariga") of the Civil Cases
Section who, although not a respondent in this case either, but whose
erroneous
report resulted in the premature entry of judgment, to henceforth be
more
careful in verifying pleadings and in reporting to the Division clerks,
as his reports are made the basis of the entries made by the latter, so
as to avoid the occurrence of the same or similar incidents in the
future;
and
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c.
Require the chiefs of the Judicial Records Division and the Civil Cases
Section to take all necessary remedial measures and adopt new internal
procedure, if needed, among their personnel to prevent the tampering of
entries in the books under their care and responsibility and/or loss of
pleadings within their respective offices.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Justice Buena adopted
the foregoing report and recommendation as his own and transmitted the
same to the Court Administrator.[6]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court Administrator
agreed with the findings of Justice Buena and further recommended that
Mr. Alberto Tariga, Jr. should be included as respondent in the case
since
it appears that he participated in the preparation of the erroneous
report
which became the basis for the premature entry of judgment.[7]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On July 12, 1999, a
resolution was issued dismissing the charges insofar as respondent
Atty.
Virginia Abella is concerned and ordering the inclusion of Alberto
Tariga,
Jr. as respondent, who was required to file a Comment on the aforesaid
complaint.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Comment,[9]
respondent Tariga averred that he was not responsible for the docketing
and reporting of motions and pleadings received by the Court of
Appeals.
When the Division Clerk of Court inquired whether a motion for
reconsideration
was filed by plaintiff-appellant, he replied that only the motion for
reconsideration
filed by intervenor Tolentino was recorded in the docket book and
attached
to the rollo.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the recommendation
of the Court Administrator.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The conduct required
of court personnel must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed
with
the heavy burden of responsibility.[10]
The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct,
official or otherwise, of the men and women who work therein, from the
judge to the lowest of its personnel; hence, it becomes the imperative
and sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good
name and standing as a true temple of justice.[11]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Perez v. Cunting,[12]
it was held that the Court will not hesitate in reprimanding court
personnel
for discourtesy to the public, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Rule XIV, Sec.
23 of the Civil Service Law and Rules,[13]
a first offense of discourtesy, which is a light penalty, in the course
of one’s official duties shall be meted the penalty of reprimand. In
Peñalosa
v. Viscaya, Jr.,[14]
respondent deputy sheriff was reprimanded for gross discourtesy in
connection
with his actuation towards the complainant (therein private complainant
in a criminal case) when the latter requested for an explanation for
his
failure to serve a warrant of arrest upon the accused. In Paras
v.
Lafranco,[15]
the respondent, Clerk III of a lower court, was charged with
discourtesy
and conduct unbecoming a court employee for her acts and utterances
directed
against the complainant, the counsel for the accused in a pending case
before said court. This Court found the arrogant gesture and
discourteous
utterances of respondent in treating the complainant to be
improper.
Accordingly, it imposed on respondent the penalty of reprimand.
In
Reyes v. Patiag,[16]
respondent clerk of court was censured for discourtesy for two acts,
when,
in a very rude manner, she denied complainant’s request to see the
records
of a civil case and treated her as if she was not an interested party
by
telling complainant that she seemed to be more knowledgeable than the
court
because complainant asked why a "preliminary investigation," actually a
preliminary examination, was necessary.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the same vein, we
cannot tolerate the discourteous manner shown by respondent Trambulo
when
she spoke to complainant in a loud voice. Discourtesy and
disrespect
have no place in the judiciary.[17]
Even if there was a logical justification for her to refuse to issue
the
said certification, there was no reason for her to display such a
high-strung
conduct. She should have been more circumspect in attending to
the
needs of complainant. As a public officer, she is bound, in the
performance
of official duties, to observe courtesy, civility, and self-restraint
in
her dealings with the public, even when confronted with rudeness and
insolence.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As for respondent Tariga,
his erroneous report that there was no motion for reconsideration of
the
Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 46153 served as the basis for the
premature
issuance of the entry of judgment. As correctly pointed out by
Atty.
Pilar-Longalong and the OCA, his participation in the irregularities
committed
in this case was indispensable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We likewise agree with
the finding that respondent Heramis was negligent in the discharge of
his
duty when he received, recorded and forwarded the motion for
reconsideration
of plaintiff-appellant to Mr. Augusto Alba, the rollo clerk of the
Court
of Appeals. Being in the Records Division, respondent Heramis was
tasked to faithfully keep track of the whereabouts of pleadings and
other
judicial records. He admitted that he deliberately did not ask
the
rollo clerk to acknowledge receipt of the pleading. In so doing,
he failed to realize that the performance of his duties is essential to
the prompt and proper administration of justice. His neglect of
duty
did not only derail the administration of justice; it also eroded
public
faith in the judiciary.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, the Court Resolves to:
(a)
REPRIMAND respondent Olimpia V. Trambulo, Chief, Receiving Section of
the
Court of Appeals, for discourteous conduct;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b)
ADMONISH respondent Alberto Tariga, Jr., Verification Clerk of the
Court
of Appeals, to be more circumspect in verifying pleadings and
submitting
reports to the Division Clerks; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c)
SUSPEND Ferdinand Heramis, Clerk, Civil Case Section of the Court of
Appeals,
for one month without pay for negligence of official duty.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Judicial Records
Division and the Civil Cases Section of the Court of Appeals are
directed
to institute remedial measures for the proper custody and handling of
pleadings
and other judicial records under its supervision to avoid similar
incidents
in the future.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All the respondents
are hereby STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts
will be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr.,
C.J.,
(Chairman)
, Vitug, Carpio, and
Azcuna,
JJ.
, concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 2-4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id. at 107-111.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 80-81.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 85-87.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 71-80.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 68.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 179-187.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 191-192.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 93.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Atty. Dajao v. Lluch, A.M. No. P-02-1570, 3 April 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Vda. De Velayo v. Ramos, A.M. No. P-99-1332, 17 January 2002; Ibay v.
Lim,
A.M. No. P-99-1309, 11 September 2000, 340 SCRA 107, 113; citing
Dionisio
v. Gilera, A.M. No. P-99-1330, 12 August 1999, 312 SCRA 287, 296; Sy v.
Cruz, 321 Phil. 236, 241-242 [1995].
[12]
A.M. No. P-02-1630, 27 August 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Book V, Executive Order No. 292.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
A.M. No. P-1391, 31 July 1978, 84 SCRA 298.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
A.M. No. P-01-1469, 26 March 2001, 355 SCRA 49.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
A.M. No. P-01-1528, 7 December 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Supra, note 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Supra, note 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |