SECOND DIVISION
RENATO R. MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
A.M.
No.
P-04-1784
[Formerly OCA I.P.I.
No. 03-1584-P]
April 28, 2004
-versus-
ANTONIA C.
BUO-RIVERA,
Respondent.
R E S O L U
T I O N
PUNO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This administrative matter
against Antonia C. Buo-Rivera, Court Stenographer III of the Regional
Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 55, stemmed from her own Letter-Complaint[1]
addressed to the Acting Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila Enrico A. Lanzanas, charging petitioner Renato R. Mendoza,
Sheriff
of RTC Manila, Branch 18, with unbecoming behavior for allegedly
committing
the following acts:
1. Shouting "huwag kang
maniwala diyan (referring to Rivera), niloloko ka lang niyan, binobola
ka lang niyan", while she was talking to Eduardo S. Divina, Legal
Researcher
of RTC Manila, Branch 18, at the hallway of the 4th floor of Manila
City
Hall, on February 5, 2002; and
2. Uttering "bakit nandito
na naman iyang putang-inang letseng babaeng iyan (referring to Rivera)?
Ikaw Gerald iwasan mo ang babaeng iyan at masamang impluwensiya iyan at
baka ikaw mabuyo" while she was at the corridor adjacent to the office
of RTC Manila, Branch 18, looking for Gerardo M. Capulong, Court
Stenographer
III of RTC Manila, Branch 18, on May 15, 2002.cralaw:red
Acting on this letter-complaint,
Judge Lanzanas directed Mendoza to file his comment/answer.[2]
In his comment/answer,[3]
Mendoza denied the allegations against him. He attached the affidavits
of Eduardo S. Divina[4]
and Atty. Carolina Peralta-Comon,[5]
Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Manila, Branch 18, to attest that the
complained
acts did not take place. He also attached the joint affidavit of three
of Rivera’s co-employees in RTC Manila, Branch 55, to prove that Rivera
is a known troublemaker and is in a habit of spreading wild rumors and
sowing intrigues.[6]
Mendoza prayed that the complaint against him be dismissed and that
Rivera
be administratively charged for sowing intrigues and making false
accusations.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While Judge Lanzanas
was conducting an investigation on the complaint, a formal
complaint-affidavit
arising from the same alleged acts was filed by Rivera with the Office
of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging Mendoza with conduct
prejudicial
to the best interest of the service.[8]
Judge Lanzanas indorsed the case to the OCA.[9]
The administrative matter was docketed as A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1415-P.cralaw:red
Based on the records
transmitted to it, the OCA, through Deputy Court Administrator
Christopher
O. Lock, recommended the dismissal of Rivera’s complaint upon a finding
that "(a)side from her bare allegations, she did not present any
evidence
to substantiate her claim, such as the affidavits of her witnesses. On
the contrary, it was respondent who was able to substantiate his
defense
by obtaining the affidavits of Mr. Divina and Atty. Peralta-Comon both
of whom affirmed his statement that he never uttered the scurrilous
remarks
against complainant."[10]
On October 9, 2002,
this Court adopted the findings of the OCA and dismissed the case of
Rivera
vs. Mendoza, A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1415-P, for lack of merit.[11]
On November 19, 2002,
Rivera filed a motion for reconsideration.[12]
She attached the affidavit of Gerardo M. Capulong who confirmed her
allegation
that the second scurrilous remarks were made.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 24, 2003,
this Court resolved to reconsider and set aside its Resolution dated
October
9, 2002 and refer Rivera’s complaint to Judge Lanzanas for further
investigation.
This court also directed the OCA to docket the instant administrative
matter
and consolidate it with Rivera’s complaint. Hence, the OCA docketed
Mendoza’s
countercharge as A.M. I.P.I. No. 03-1584-P and consolidated it with
A.M.
OCA I.P.I. No. 02- 1415-P.cralaw:red
Acting on this Court’s
resolution, Judge Lanzanas conducted further hearings for reception of
evidence. After evaluating the evidence, Judge Lanzanas recommended the
dismissal of Rivera vs. Mendoza, A.M. I.P.I. No. 02-1415-P, for lack of
merit. In Mendoza vs. Rivera, A.M. I.P.I. No. 03-1584-P, Judge Lanzanas
found Rivera guilty of spreading gossips and false rumors and
recommended
a fine of one (1) month salary with the admonition that repeated
conduct
will be severely dealt with.[14]
The report of Judge
Lanzanas was referred to the OCA for evaluation. On November 23, 2003,
Deputy Court Administrator Lock agreed with the findings of Judge
Lanzanas
but modified the recommended penalty as follows:
1. That the complaint
against respondent sheriff Renato R. Mendoza, docketed as A.M. OCA
I.P.I.
No. 02-1415-P be dismissed for lack of merit; and
2. That in A.M. OCA
I.P.I. No. 03-1584-P, respondent Antonia C. Buo-Rivera be held guilty
of
Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Servant and be fined Php 5,000.00, with
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will
be dealt with more severely.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 2, 2004,
this Court resolved to dismiss Rivera vs. Mendoza, A.M. I.P.I. No.
02-1415-P,
for lack of merit. Hence, the instant administrative matter was
redocketed
as A.M. No. P-04-1784.cralaw:red
We agree with the findings
of the OCA and approve its recommended penalty.cralaw:red
It is well-settled that
in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of
proving
by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint.[16]
Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence that a
reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[17]
The charge of making
false accusations was proven by substantial evidence.cralaw:red
The falsity of Rivera’s
allegations is patent from the records. Rivera testified that the first
scurrilous remarks were made in the presence of Eduardo S. Divina[18]
while the second remarks were uttered in the presence of Gerardo M.
Capulong
and Atty. Carolina Peralta-Comon, among others.[19]
Divina and Atty. Peralta-Comon outrightly testified that no such
scurrilous
remarks were made.[20]
Capulong, on the other hand, refused to testify when a subpoena was
issued
to him. He submitted an explanation to Judge Lanzanas asking that he be
excluded from testifying because both parties are his friends and that
he "cannot stand firm for one and against with another."[21]
It was only after the original complaint was dismissed by this Court
that
he executed an affidavit attached to Rivera’s motion for
reconsideration
confirming Rivera’s testimony that the second scurrilous words were
uttered.
As correctly pointed out by both Judge Lanzanas and Deputy Court
Administrator
Lock, however, the reason for his change of heart was not sufficiently
explained. In fact, the credibility of his testimony is rendered
doubtful
by his own declaration that one of his reasons for taking Rivera’s side
is Mendoza’s alleged menacing attitude towards him after the dismissal
of Rivera’s complaint.[22]
In any case, Capulong testified that Atty. Peralta-Comon, Divina, Elena
Arcenal, Romulo Bermudes and Sherry Cervantes also witnessed the second
act complained of.[23]
However, like Atty. Peralta-Comon and Divina, Cervantes denied that
Mendoza
uttered the second scurrilous remarks.[24]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
people alleged by Rivera
and Capulong to have witnessed the complained events – Atty. Carolina
Peralta-Comon,
Eduardo Divina and Sherry Cervantes. Rivera herself declared that she
had
no misunderstanding with Atty. Peralta-Comon and Divina.[25]
In fact, Atty. Peralta-Comon is the wife of her cousin’s nephew.[26]
It is also worthy to note that Rivera did not present the other alleged
witnesses to rebut the testimonies of these three witnesses. It is
therefore
clear that Rivera is guilty of falsely accusing Mendoza.cralaw:red
The charge of sowing
intrigues was also sufficiently established.cralaw:red
Ma. Lourdes S. Castillo,
Arlene R. Calditaran and Isabelita D. Artus, co-employees of Rivera in
RTC Manila, Branch 55, executed a joint affidavit stating that they
personally
know Rivera as a troublemaker and as someone who spreads wild rumors
and
gossips and causes quarrels among other employees by sowing intrigues.[27]
Castillo testified that Rivera told her suitor that Castillo was
heavily
indebted and that he deserved a better woman.[28]
Castillo also testified that Rivera had a quarrel with their other
officemates,
namely, Arlene R. Calditaran, Isabelita Artus and Rosanna Esteban.[29]
The testimonies of Calditaran and Artus were offered as evidence to
support
Castillo’s testimony. Artus testified that Rivera caused a fight
between
their former process server Cesar Sebastian and his wife Fely by
spreading
the rumor that the bracelet being sold by Mr. Sebastian was the lost
bracelet
of his wife.[30]
Mendoza testified that Rivera caused his childhood friend Police
Inspector
Alfredo Opriaza to challenge him to a gun duel and fistfight when she
told
Opriaza, who had a pending case with RTC Manila, Branch 55, that
Mendoza
was working for his conviction.[31]
Furthermore, Cervantes testified that Rivera was being avoided by most
of her co-employees in RTC Manila, Branch 18 because of her habit of
spreading
gossips.[32]
Rivera hardly offered
any evidence to counter these damaging testimonies. While presenting
quite
a number of witnesses to refute the testimony of Artus that she
discouraged
the staff of Branch 41 from eating at the canteen of their cooperative,[33]
she did not present any evidence to rebut the more important charges
against
her. She did not even present her other co-employees in RTC Manila,
Branch
55, to rebut the damaging statements of Castillo, Artus and Calditaran
or other employees in RTC Manila, Branch 18, to disprove the testimony
of Cervantes. Rivera merely presented as witness Atty. Raymund U. Tan,
President of the Philippine Association of Court Employees, who
testified
that she is perceived to be morally above reproach and a responsible
officer.[34]
Surely, the lone testimony of Atty. Tan who had no personal knowledge
of
the events leading to this administrative matter cannot overcome the
positive
testimonies of Rivera’s co-employees who interact with her everyday.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Time and again this
Court has stressed that the conduct of everyone connected with the
dispensation
of justice, from the judges to the most junior of clerks, must at all
times
be characterized with propriety and decorum.[35]
Rivera’s acts of making false accusations and sowing intrigues are acts
unbecoming of a public servant. They go against the principles of
public
service as solemnly enshrined in the 1987 Constitution[36]
and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees (R.A. No. 6713). Such acts rob the attention of public
employees
and courts from more imperative tasks and result in undue wastage of
government
resources. Such contemptible kind of behavior must not be tolerated if
we are to demand the highest degree of excellence and professionalism
among
public employees and preserve the integrity and dignity of our courts
of
justice.cralaw:red
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we
find Antonia C. Buo-Rivera guilty of conduct unbecoming of a public
servant
and impose on her a fine of P5,000, with a stern warning that
repetition
of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more
severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Dated May 22, 2002; Rollo, p. 11.
[2]
Memorandum dated May 22, 2002; Id. at p. 13.
[3]
Dated June 7, 2002; Id. at p. 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at p. 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at p. 8.
[6]
Id. at p. 9.
[7]
Id. at p. 5.
[8]
Id. at p. 2.
[9]
Id. at p. 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id. at pp. 39-40.
[11]
Id. at p. 41.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id. at p. 43.
[13]
Id. at pp. 44-45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Report and Recommendation dated August 6, 2003, p. 6.
[15]
Memorandum dated November 23, 2003, p. 4.
[16]
Licudine vs. Saquilayan, A.M. No. P-02-1618 (February 4, 2003).
[17]
Section 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court.
[18]
TSN, July 29, 2002, p. 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id. at pp. 19-20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Supra Notes 4 and 5.
[21]
Rollo, p. 30chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
.
[22]
TSN, April 8, 2003, pp. 14-16.
[23]
Id. at p. 41.
[24]
Rollo, p. 157.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
TSN, April 1, 2003, pp. 14-15.
[26]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Supra Note 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
TSN, May 13, 2002, p. 30.
[29]
Id. at p. 37.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Id. at pp. 57-59.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
TSN, May 20, 2003, p. 33.
[32]
Supra Note 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
TSN dated May 13, 2003, pp. 72-74.
[34]
TSN dated April 8, 2003, p. 56.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
De Jesus vs. Collado, A.C. No. 3806 (1992).
[36]
Section 1, Article XI.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |