CRISTETA
D. ORFILA, A. M. No.
P-06-2110
Complainant, (Formerly
OCA IPI No. 02-1377-P)
Present:
-
versus - PANGANIBAN, C.J.,
PUNO,
QUISUMBING,
ESTIFANA
S. ARELLANO, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
H.R.M.O.
II, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
Respondent. CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO-MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO, and
GARCIA, JJ.
x----------------------------------------x
SPS. ROMULO and ESTIFANA A.M. NO.
P-03-1692
ARELLANO,
(Formerly
OCA IPI No. 02-1424-P)
Complainants,
-
versus -
Clerk of Court JESUS P,
MANINGAS, Promulgated:
Assistant Clerk of Court
JENNIFER C.
BUENDIA and Process Server
CRISTETA
D. ORFILA, Regional Trial
Court,
Office of the Clerk of Court,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
Jesus
drove away the moneylenders from the temple for good reason.
These consolidated administrative matters involve employees
of the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), Regional Trial Court (RTC),
of the RTC Manila with
graft and corrupt practices, etc.,[4]
as well as Orfila for falsification of public document, etc.[5]
The cases were filed separately. On
Since the parties have
conflicting versions, the facts for each case as culled from the records, shall
be presented and discussed separately.
According to Orfila, at about P10,000.00
from Arellano and the latter was demanding payment for the unpaid interest due
thereon in the amount of P2,000.00.
A heated argument ensued between them.
Atty. Maningas advised the two women to settle the matter outside her
office and urged them to respect her position.
Then Orfila asked Arellano, “Bakit naman Panyeng ganyan ka
binabastos mo ako, wag kang bastos.
Pormalin mo ako Panyeng. Meron naman akong table sa kabila, doon mo ako
puntahan at singilin. Huwag kung
saan-saan pati doon sa table ni Boy,” to which Arellano retorted, “Sinungaling ka talaga, Tita, hindi ‘yan totoo,
sinungaling ka.”[9]
At
this point,
Arellano suddenly slapped Orfila on her left cheek prompting Atty. Maningas to
call for the help of the other employees who were seated by their table right
outside the door of her office. There were only two other employees present,
Glenda Homeres and Ernesto Lacaba. They later testified that they had heard the
altercation, and through the glass panels of Atty. Maningas’s cubicle, witnessed
the slapping incident. Homeres helped
Orfila to sit down as she seemed about to fall while Lacaba tried to pacify
Arellano who then had taken off one of her shoes and was attempting to hit
Orfila with it.
Thereafter, Orfila had
herself examined in the Ospital ng Maynila and was attended to by Dr. Jose
Pingol. Dr. Pingol issued to her a
medical certificate[10]
diagnosing her with swelling of the left and right cheeks that could have been
caused by slapping.
Atty. Buendia, the Assistant Clerk of Court, was not
present when the incident took place but learned of the same through a text
message she received while she was on her way to the office.[11] When
she arrived, Atty. Maningas relayed to her what she had witnessed and
instructed her verbally, and through a subsequent memorandum,[12]
to conduct an investigation on the matter.
Atty. Maningas inhibited herself therefrom as Arellano was her kumadre, she being a principal sponsor
in the wedding of one of the latter’s children.
She also feared being accused of bias should she find for Orfila because
the latter gave her suman.[13]
On the same day of the incident, Atty. Buendia called a
meeting of all section chiefs and officers as well as Arellano, wherein they
were reminded to be vigilant in preventing a repetition of the same untoward
incident in the office. After the
meeting, Atty. Buendia spoke to her about the shameful incident. Arellano just replied, “Agi, nabigla ako. Buligi na la ako.”[14]
Later that afternoon, Judge Arellano came to their office. He told both Atty. Maningas and Atty. Buendia
that he gave his wife money out of his retirement pay “para may mapaglibangan” and that refusal to pay a debt was
actionable under the Civil Service Law.[15] Atty. Buendia expressed her hopes that
the matter between Orfila and his wife will be settled, to which he replied, “Ah oo, pepersonalin ko ito.”[16]
Orfila then arrived and Judge Arellano apologized to her. He asked that she forgive his wife and not to
push through with filing a complaint but Orfila refused.
The Investigating Committee headed by Atty. Buendia interviewed Orfila, Arellano, Homeres, Lacaba
and Atty. Maningas. They also tried to
reconcile Orfila and Arellano several times but to no avail. According to Atty. Buendia, the parties were
not represented by counsel nor were stenographic notes taken during the
investigation since it was only an inter-office matter that they hoped would be
settled between the parties.
On
Defending herself, Arellano decried
complainant’s version of the facts as fabricated, trumped-up, malicious and
intentionally filed by Orfila out of vindictiveness and for the purpose of
harassment.[19] She claimed that the complainant obtained a P10,000.00
loan from her at 10% interest every month to be paid in three (3) months. When complainant defaulted, she tried to
collect from her every pay day. It took Orfila years to pay a part of the
principal amount and would burst into anger every time she was reminded of the
unpaid balance of her loan. Arellano testified that she did not file any formal
complaint against Orfila regarding her debt but only asked her husband to send
her a demand letter.[20]
At
Arellano
further claimed that the instant case was filed by Orfila in connivance with
Atty. Maningas and Atty. Buendia. Atty.
Maningas is also indebted to her in the total amount of P15,000.00 at
10% monthly interest which she refused to pay.
Atty. Maningas allegedly tried to convince her several times to condone
her loan obligations as well as that of Orfila in exchange for Orfila’s
desistance from filing a complaint against her but she flatly refused. They then conspired with Atty. Buendia to silence
her by carefully planning a set-up wherein she was called to Atty. Maningas’s
office under the pretext that Orfila would settle her indebtedness through
her. They then made it appear that she
had provoked the incident and Atty. Maningas could be the sole witness while
Atty. Buendia would conduct the investigation.
Arellano charged that Glenda Homeres and Ernesto Lacaba were only
instructed by Atty. Maningas to testify in favor of Orfila.
Arellano
testified that she did not file any complaint against Orfila, Maningas and
Buendia nor report the matter to her superior or with the Executive Judge of
RTC Manila. Nobody prevented her from
doing so but she simply did not want to have any enemies for she was then
retiring soon.[25] Arellano further testified that she was
interviewed by the Investigating Committee regarding the
incident
but she was not
allowed to submit a written explanation.
Thereafter, Atty. Maningas and Atty. Buendia suggested that she settle
the case amicably with Orfila by giving the latter P30,000.00, which
amount was later reduced to P20,000.00. However, she did not assert that
she was the aggrieved party because she wanted the case to be settled before
she retired.
Arellano further averred
that after the slapping incident, Atty. Maningas, Atty. Buendia and Orfila
started harassing her by threatening to block her retirement benefits if she
did not give in to their demands.
However, she filed an administrative complaint against them only after
she received a copy of Orfila’s complaint.[26]
Arellano’s husband also testified in
his wife’s behalf, essentially corroborating her tale. According to him, after his wife called him
in the afternoon of
Sps. Romulo
and Estifana Arellano v. Jesusa P. Maningas, Jennifer C. Buendia and Cristeta
D. Orfila
The spouses Arellano, this time as complainants, filed a
joint complaint-affidavit[28]
against Orfila, Atty. Maningas and Atty. Buendia.
The Arellanos accused
Orfila of falsification of public documents by making it appear in her Service
Record[29]
and in her Personal Data Sheet,[30]
which she personally accomplished when she was appointed janitor in the Court
of First Instance of Manila on 1 November 1982, that she was born on 8 October
1942 in Carigara, Leyte when in fact she was not.
Her marriage contract[31]
showed that when she was married on
The Arellanos further charged Orfila with the nonpayment of
her loan and of conniving with Atty. Maningas and Atty. Buendia in harassing
Arellano in order to evade payment of her obligation. She allegedly acted as a willing tool
considering that she was extraordinarily close to them and that she owed Atty.
Maningas favors, among which was the employment of her three children in RTC
Manila.
Orfila denied the charges, insisting that she was born on
Orfila further claimed that her marriage with her husband
was arranged by her parents. When she
signed the marriage contract, she did not know that her age as stated therein
was 22 years old. She was only asked by
her father to sign the document and she did not know what she was signing
then. Neither could she remember how old
she was because she was still very young then.
She had just enrolled in Grade II and she cannot read but can only write
her name.
According to Orfila, she has nothing but a simple superior-subordinate
relationship with Atty. Maningas and Atty. Buendia. She denied that they framed up Arellano. She filed a case against Arellano of her own
volition because the latter had slapped her.
Meanwhile, complainants-spouses charged Atty. Maningas with
graft and corrupt practices, illegal and immoral abuse of official position,
gross misconduct, immoral solicitation and nonpayment of loans, betrayal of
public trust, illegal solicitation of money, oppression, coercion, maliciously
and deliberately trying to delay, block or otherwise deprive Mrs. Arellano of
her retirement benefits by filing midnight and trumped-up charges against her,
in connivance with Atty. Buendia and Orfila, and dishonesty.[34]
Arellano admitted that
after her husband got his retirement gratuity, she extended loans to people in
the office who requested for one. Atty.
Maningas allegedly pleaded with Arellano to allow her a loan of P30,000.00. Arellano was then a subordinate employee of
Atty. Maningas in the OCC. At first,
Arellano refused but after consulting her husband, Arellano agreed to lend her P10,000.00. Atty. Maningas accepted the same for which
she signed a receipt dated P5,000.00 in February 1999.[36]
They agreed that the loans were payable in three (3) months.
Yet despite several
demands by Arellano, Atty. Maningas never paid the loans. Instead, the latter tried to sweet talk her that
she would recommend her for promotion if she would condone her loans. When Arellano was eventually promoted as
Human Resource Management Officer II, Atty. Maningas claimed that she
facilitated her promotion by following it up personally and even treating the
members of the Selection and Promotion Board of the Supreme Court to
snacks.
Arellano testified that she did not file any action against
Atty. Maningas out of respect and she just hoped that she would be paid. Neither did she send her any demand
letter. It was only when she was about
to retire in May 2002 that she informed her husband of Atty. Maningas’s refusal
to pay.
The Arellanos further alleged
that it was “usap-usapan” in the RTC Manila that Atty. Maningas and
Atty. Buendia were involved in the anomalous re-raffle of certain criminal
cases. They also allegedly created their
own screening committee for accepting employment in the OCC.
Rebutting these charges, Atty. Maningas
claimed that in January 1999, she learned from a fellow employee that Arellano
was granting loans at a very low interest rate.
She approached Arellano who offered her a loan. Atty. Maningas admitted procuring two (2)
loans totaling P15,000.00 at P500.00 monthly interest per P10,000.00
increment of the principal amount, payable in six (6) installments. The installments, interest and period covered
were stated in Arellano’s notebook which Atty. Maningas signs every time she
pays. At the beginning, she kept a list[37]
of her own but she discontinued the same because she trusted Arellano. No oral or written demand was ever made to
her by Arellano. On the day of the
slapping incident, she even reminded Judge Arellano of the fact that she had paid her
debt and the latter did not correct her.[38]
Atty. Maningas further testified that in 2002 she requested
for a moratorium from paying the loan which Arellano granted. Upon approval of her SCSLA loan in February
2002,[39]
she paid Arellano the balance of her loan which was more or less P4,000.00
in the presence of some female employees in the library, namely: Editha
Gochingco and Lenida Cariño.[40] After Arellano received the same, she said, “Naku matutuwa si Judge nito,” to which Atty. Maningas replied, “Wala ba akong diploma comadre?”[41] But Mrs. Arellano answered, “Wala na ma’am, ok na
ito.” She no longer insisted on
getting a receipt because it would be a sign of mistrust. Furthermore, Arellano had the habit of not
issuing any receipt upon full payment of loans by borrowers. She admitted lending money to Laniel Jornada,
a co-employee, and not issuing a receipt when he paid her. She simply recorded his payments in her
notebook.
Atty. Maningas also denied having any knowledge of Orfila’s
age. According to her, there were more
than 100 personnel in their office and they cannot be expected to go over each
of their biodata. Neither did she have
anything to do with Orfila’s employment with the RTC Manila nor with her
children’s. Orfila was recommended by
then Executive Judge Salvador and her children were recommended by their
respective judges. Atty. Maningas likewise denied having a hand in Arellano’s
promotion. Arellano was promoted in 2001
to the position of Human Resource Management Officer II because she was the
lone applicant and she was recommended by then Executive Judge Guarina.
As regards the
alleged anomaly in the re-raffle of cases, Atty. Maningas explained that the
case of “People v. Jose Sy y Ang,” on which the disturbing rumors had centered, was added to the cases calendared for
raffle on
Complainants-spouses hurled similar charges of conspiracy,
corruption and abuse of position against Atty. Buendia. In addition, Atty. Buendia is popularly known
to have the habit of throwing sumptuous birthday parties in the Office of the
Clerk of Court. During her birthday party
on
Atty. Buendia denied framing up Arellano as earlier mentioned. She did not even know that Atty. Maningas
borrowed money from Arellano. She found
out about it only when Atty. Maningas excused herself
one day and informed her that she was going to the library to pay Arellano the
balance of her loan. When she came back,
she happily announced, “Graduate na ako, la na ako utang kay Estifania.”[44]
Atty. Maningas had bought fried chicken for their lunch that day because she
was finally able to encash her loan check from the SCSLA.
Atty. Buendia denied harassing or threatening Mrs. Arellano
into paying Mrs. Orfila P30,000.00.
She admitted exerting efforts to reconcile the two but Orfila’s children
objected to their mother acceding to any settlement. According to them, the only acceptable settlement
was for their mother to also slap Mrs. Arellano.
Atty. Buendia also denied throwing a birthday bash on
As regards the alleged rigging of the raffle of the Ang
Sy case, Atty. Buendia claimed that she was not forced to resign from the
raffle committee. She tendered her
resignation out of delicadeza and no
charges were filed against her regarding the same.[45]
Judge Arellano also
testified to support his wife’s charges.
He asserted that he did not apologize to Orfila. He also testified that he did not respond
when Atty. Maningas told him that she had already paid her debt because he felt
amused by her remark knowing that she had not yet settled her loan obligations
with his wife. He did not take any legal action to demand payment from Atty.
Maningas because he did not want his wife to encounter any problem when she
retires. He likewise stated that he and his wife talked to Gochingco in the RTC
library sometime in September 2002. She
allegedly told them that she was pressured by Atty. Maningas to execute a
joint-affidavit with Cariño and that she promised them a promotion if they
would testify in favor of Atty. Maningas.
But he no longer confronted her on the matter when she testified at the
hearing because it was enough that it was put on record that Atty. Maningas
went to her and requested that she execute a joint affidavit with Cariño in her
favor. He also submitted a photocopy of
a letter addressed to Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Court Administrator,
purportedly written by Atty. Rolando Alejandro Q. Agustin of the Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas charging Atty. Buendia, et.
al. with alleged gross violation of laws and conduct prejudicial to the
interest of the government.[46]
During the course of the
investigation, Mrs. Orfila passed away.
In a letter dated
After the investigation,
Justice Atienza submitted his consolidated report[47]
to the OCA on
The OCA through Justice
Atienza made the following recommendations:
IPI No.
1377-P [A.M. No. P-06-2110]
Respondent
Estifana S. Arellano be penalized to:
(a)
pay a
fine in the amount of P20,000.00 for misconduct for having slapped
Cristeta D. Orfila in the Office of the Clerk of Court and in her presence; and
(b)
pay a
fine in the amount of P20,000.00 for engaging in the business of lending
money in the Office of the Clerk of Court at usurious rates of interest.
Administrative Matter No. 03-1692
(1)
In
view of the death of Cristeta D. Orfila during the pendency of the
investigation as shown in the Death Certificate submitted by Ms. Winefreda O.
Paas was marked as Annex “1”, the penalty of suspension or dismissal from the
service is no longer possible, the penalty of forfeiture of retirement
benefits, except the accrued leaves, be imposed for falsification of public
documents.
(2)
Then
Clerk of Court, (now) Judge Jesusa P. Maningas be penalized to pay a fine of P20,000.00
for borrowing money from a subordinate employee. The other charges be dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence.
(3)
The
charges against Atty. Jennifer C. Buendia be dismissed for insufficiency of
evidence.”[49]
Both administrative
matters are now before us to consider Justice Atienza’s findings and
recommendations.
The issue in these twin
administrative matters is whether or not the respective conduct of the parties
warrant the imposition of administrative sanction. We agree with the findings of Justice Atienza
and adopt the penalties he recommended except with respect to Arellano.
Charges against Estifana S. Arellano
Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Employee
Employees in the
government service are bound by the rules of proper and ethical behavior and
are expected to act with self-restraint and civility at all times, even when
confronted with rudeness and insolence.[50] Arellano utterly failed in this regard.
The records reveal that
Arellano indeed slapped Orfila in the presence of Atty. Maningas after starting
a heated argument regarding an unpaid loan.
Orfila categorically and unwaiveringly testified that Arellano slapped
her in the presence of Atty. Maningas.
The medical certificate issued to her by Dr. Pingol confirms that she
sustained injury as a result thereof.
Her testimony was further corroborated by three eyewitnesses to whom
Arellano failed to impute evil motive.
In the absence of evil motive, their testimonies should be given full
weight and credence.[51] In People
v. Villagracia,[52] this Court held:
On the other hand, accused-appellants were
unable to prove any ulterior motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to
falsely implicate them for the crime. In the absence of ill-will, it is hardly
credible that these witnesses would prevaricate and cause damnation to the one
who brought them no harm or injury.
Meanwhile, Arellano
interposed the defenses of denial and frame-up.
Justice Atienza reported that it is physically impossible for Orfila to
have sustained injury on her left cheek if her right hand, which she was
allegedly thrusting at Arellano’s face was merely pushed by the latter
considering the fact that they were facing each other when the incident
occurred.
As to the defense of
frame-up, the same is farfetched and flimsy.
Aside from her own self-serving testimony and that of her husband, she
failed to present a scintilla of evidence that the slapping incident was a mere
fabrication. Neither could have Atty.
Buendia rendered a distorted report on the investigation as there were two
other employees designated as members of the Investigating Committee who
participated actively during the entire investigation. Arellano did not take legal action against
either of them. To say that the
investigation was staged would be stretching it too far.
The testimony of her husband, Judge
Arellano, is bereft of evidentiary value being mere hearsay.[53] His knowledge of the incident came from his
alleged conversations with Atty. Maningas, Orfila and his wife. At best, his testimony may be admitted only
as proof that there was such a conversation but without reference to the truth
or falsity of the words uttered.
If unsubstantiated by
clear and convincing evidence, denial is self-serving and cannot overturn
positive eyewitness accounts.[54] Meanwhile, the tenability of the defense of
frame-up depends largely on the court’s assessment of the credibility of the
testimonial evidence of the offender.[55] Arellano failed to substantiate her
allegations. Justice Atienza reported
that when Arellano testified in both cases, she was restless and did not even
look directly at Atty. Maningas,[56]
while Orfila and her witnesses did not waiver in their testimony.
It is highly probable
that Arellano, after consultation with her husband, panicked for fear of losing
her retirement benefits because of her own mischief. Believing that offense is the best defense,
they turned the tables on the complainant and even implicated her superiors.[57]
If there was anyone who manufactured a tall tale, it was she. Arellano then filed an administrative case
against the three with her husband, a retired RTC judge, as co-complainant in
order to lend credence to her story.
Arellano lays emphasis on
her clean record and long faithful service in the judiciary. However, her act
of slapping Orfila without proof of sufficient provocation and in the presence
of her superior in the latter’s office during working hours falls short of the
standard of conduct required of court employees. We ruled in Baloloy v. Flores,[58]
to wit:
The conduct and behavior of everyone
connected with the office charged with the administration of justice must at
all times be characterized by propriety and decorum. The court will not tolerate misconduct
committed by court personnel, particularly during office hours within the
premises of the court. Such misconduct shows lack of respect for the court, and
erodes the good image of the judiciary in the eyes of the public.
Although the slapping may
not be work-related, the brazenness of her act is totally unacceptable and
should not be countenanced. As
enunciated by this Court in Zenaida C.
Gutierrez, et. al. v. Rodolfo Quitalig,[59]
to wit:
Employees of the judiciary…should be
living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of official duties
but also in their personal and private dealings with other people so as
to preserve at all times the good name and standing of the courts in the
community. The image of a court, as being a true temple of justice, is aptly
mirrored in the conduct, official or
otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the
least and lowest of its personnel. (Emphasis supplied.)
Moreover, Arellano’s
behavior in the office can be characterized as anything but exemplary. Arellano admitted that she lent money to her
officemates including Atty. Maningas, who was her direct superior, at a monthly
interest rate of 10%. It was because of
the unpaid interest on Orfila’s loan that Arellano had an altercation with
Orfila that resulted to the slapping incident.
Under the Civil Service Law, lending money at usurious rates of interest
is prohibited.[60] So is the lending of money by subordinates to
superior officers.[61] The same is punishable as a light offense
under Section 22, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Civil Service
Law, as amended, and for which Arellano must likewise be penalized.
However, Section 17 of
the Omnibus Rules implementing the Civil Service Law states that if the
respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty
imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge or counts and
the rest may be considered aggravating circumstances.
For slapping Orfila and
worse, in the presence of her superior, Arellano is guilty of misconduct which
is punishable by suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months
for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense.[62] Such penalty should be imposed in its maximum
considering that Arellano is also guilty of lending money at usurious rates of
interest and of lending money to a superior officer. Since she has already retired, she should be
held liable to pay a fine equivalent to six (6) months’ salary at the time she
committed the offense in 2002.
Justice Atienza found substantial evidence to show that Orfila
falsified her Service Record and Personal Data Sheet indicating thereon a false
birthdate. She stated therein that she
was born on
However, her marriage
contract readily reveals that she was 22 years old at the time she was married
in 1956. The birth certificate of her
son, William, where she was the informant, shows that she was married on
All three (3) documents mentioned above, namely Orfila’s
birth certificate, her marriage contract, and William Orfila’s birth
certificate, are official records that are prima facie evidence of the
facts stated therein.[63] While it has been held that a birth certificate
is the best evidence of a person’s date of birth and that late registration by
the mother of her child’s birth does not affect its evidentiary value,[64]
we cannot say the same for Orfila’s birth certificate in the face of
contradictory evidence.
There is no record of Orfila’s birth
on
was she who furnished the data
contained therein.[67] Furthermore, the timing in
which the late registration of the said
birth certificate
was effected, which was on
Moreover, Orfila did not
tell the truth when she testified that she had just enrolled in Grade II at the
time she was married in 1956. Her
Personal Data Sheet that she personally accomplished and submitted to the
Supreme Court on
The same is true for
William’s birth certificate. In
addition, Orfila herself was the informant therein and she is estopped from
denying that she was
21 years old when she gave birth to William.
Whether Orfila was 22 years old at the time she got married or 21
years old when William was born, she must have falsified her Personal Data
Sheet and Service Record in the judiciary in either case.
Under the Civil Service
Law, falsification of official document is a grave offense punishable by
dismissal for the first offense.[69]
Since the penalty of dismissal is no longer feasible in view of Orfila’s death,
the penalty of forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leaves, should
be imposed on her.
Atty. Maningas’s version
that she was offered a loan by Arellano and that she had already paid the same
should be given more credence than that of the Arellanos’s. It was impossible that Atty. Maningas
pestered Arellano into lending her money considering that Arellano admitted to
being a moneylender in the OCC. It is
likewise impossible that Atty. Maningas had not paid Arellano at all
considering that both loans were secured in 1999 and both were payable in three
(3) months but not a single demand letter
was sent to Atty.
Maningas even after Arellano retired from service on
As opposed to the
Arellanos’s self-serving and uncorroborated testimonies, there is ample
evidence on record to show that Atty. Maningas had paid her loan. However, borrowing money from a subordinate
is punishable as a light offense under Civil Service Law.[70] Being the Clerk of Court of the RTC Manila,
she was expected to know the Civil Service Law by heart as she had the duty to
implement the same among her subordinates.
For failing to measure up to the exacting standards of conduct required
of her, she must be correspondingly penalized.
Graft and Corrupt
Practices, Oppression,
Abuse of Office, etc.
As to the other charges
against Atty. Maningas, the Arellanos failed to substantiate
their accusations.
They presented mere
hearsay evidence as well
as their self-serving testimonies
totally devoid of factual basis. It is the complainants’ duty to prove what
they allege. Hence, Atty. Maningas is hereby exonerated from the said charges.
The Arellanos likewise failed to
present substantial evidence to prove their charges against Atty. Buendia. There is also nothing wrong with celebrating
one’s birthday in the office especially if it has been a tradition
therein. Furthermore, the anonymous
complaint addressed to Executive Judge Salvador against Atty. Buendia regarding
the anomalous re-raffle of the Ang Sy case deserves scant consideration
considering that they were handwritten and were not even endorsed by Judge
Salvador to the OCC for proper disposition.
This kind of letter can easily be manufactured and does not inspire
belief.
Common Charges
against Cristeta D. Orfila, Atty. (now Judge) Jesusa P. Maningas and Atty.
Jennifer Dela Cruz-Buendia
As earlier discussed, the Arellanos
have not shown any positive and convincing evidence of conspiracy among Orfila,
Atty. Maningas and Atty. Buendia to frame her up and to delay and/or deprive her of her retirement
benefits. They failed
to prove that
Atty.
Maningas and Atty. Buendia performed overt acts in
furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
Again, we believe that such accusations were concocted by complainants
as a desperate but futile attempt to shield Arellano from the consequences of
her misconduct. This Court shall not be
an instrument to the furtherance of such duplicity.
WHEREFORE,
judgment is rendered as follows:
1. Estifana S. Arellano is found
GUILTY of misconduct, lending money at usurious interest rates and lending
money to a superior, and meted a FINE in
the amount equivalent to six (6) months’ salary deducted from whatever leave
and retirement benefits/privileges she may be entitled to;
2. Cristeta D. Orfila is found
GUILTY of falsification of official documents and meted the penalty of
forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leaves. The other charges against her are DISMISSED for
insufficiency of evidence;
3.
Atty. Jesusa P. Maningas
is found GUILTY of borrowing money from a subordinate and meted a FINE of P20,000.00. The other charges against her are DISMISSED for
insufficiency of evidence;
4. As to Atty. Jennifer
C. Buendia, all charges against her are DISMISSED for
insufficiency of evidence.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Associate
Justice |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAG0 Associate
Justice |
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate
Justice |
MA.
ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES Associate Justice |
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate
Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate
Justice |
[2]Regional
Trial Court, Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 5.
[3]Now
Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch. 24.
[4]A.M.
No. P-03-1692, rollo, p. 12; The letter-complaint
filed by complainant-spouses Arellano charges Attys. Jesus P. Maningas and
Jennifer C. Buendia as follows:
“1. Against
Atty. Jesusa P. Maningas – for Graft and Corrupt Practices, Illegal and Immoral
Abuse of Official Position, Gross Misconduct, Immoral Solicitation and
Non-payment of Loans with Abuse of Official Position and Influence, Betrayal of
Public Trust, Illegal Solicitation of money amounting to Attempted Extortion,
Oppression, Coercion, Maliciously and deliberately trying to delay, block or otherwise deprive
my wife, Estifana S. Arellano, of her retirement benefits by filing midnight
and trumped-up charges against her, in connivance with Atty. Jennifer C.
Buendia and Cristeta D. Orfila, and Dishonesty.
“2. Against
Atty. Jennifer C. Buendia – for Graft and Corrupt Practices, Illegal and Immoral
Solicitation of money amounting to extortion, Grave Misconduct highly
prejudicial to the best interest of the service, Oppression, Abuse of Official
Position and Influence, Maliciously and deliberately trying to delay, block or
otherwise deprive my wife, Estifana S. Arellano, of her retirement gratuity and
other benefits by filing or causing to be filed against her, midnight,
fabricated and trumped-up charges, in collusion with Atty. Jesusa P. Maningas
and Cristeta D. Orfila, Betrayal of Public Trust, and Dishonesty.”
[5]Ibid. The letter-complaint filed
by complainant-spouses Arellano charges Process Server Cristeta D. Orfila as
follows:
“3.
Against Cristeta D. Orfila – for Falsification of Official or Public Document,
Threats, Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, Illegally remaining in the service of
the judiciary and unlawfully and fraudulently drawing her salary and other
benefits after she reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 on October 8,
1999 in connivance with and protection of Atty. Maningas and Atty. Buendia, and
Maliciously and deliberately trying to deprive my wife, Estifana S. Arrellano,
of her retirement gratuity and other benefits by filing against her midnight,
false and trumped-up charges in conspiracy with Atty. Jesusa P. Maningas and
Atty. Jennifer C. Buendia.”
[11]As stated in the Rebuttal Affidavit of Atty. Jennifer C. Buendia marked as Exhibit “F”, A.M. No. P-06-2110, rollo, p. 83.
[12]A.M.
No. P-03-1692, rollo, p. 83.
[14]When
translated to English means, “Alas, I was carried away! Just help me.” A.M. No. P-06-2110, rollo,
p. 83.
[21]A.M.
No. P-03-1692, rollo, p. 135.
[27]A.M.
No. P-03-1692, rollo, pp. 137-138.
[38]
“Judge Arellano: Oh,
Atty. Buendia, I’ve heard that you had a bonga birthday party.
Atty. Buendia: Wala
po ‘yon judge. Sila lang dito ang
nagkasundo mag-birthday party. Pot luck
lang po.
Judge Arellano (to Atty. Maningas): I came here because my wife
told me about
the incident this morning.
Atty. Maningas: Oo
nga judge, magbabayad na
xxx xxx xxx
Judge Arellano: Hindi
ba alam ni Mrs. Orfila na sa Civil Service Law bawal mangutang na ayaw magbayad.
Atty. Maningas: Eh
ako nga po judge, meron din akong utang sa inyo. Buti na lang tapos na akong magbayad, diba?
Judge
Arellano: (He did not say anything at
all, he just smiled.)”
[39]At the hearing, Atty. Maningas presented a
certification from the SCSLA that she was indeed granted a salary loan of P101,000.00
on P87,333.00 as of
[40]Respondent
also presented the joint affidavit and testimonies of Editha Gochingco and
Lenida Cariño who were in the library when Atty. Maningas allegedly paid
Arellano. They both testified that they
saw Atty. Maningas and Arellano talking in the library on
[47]
[51]People v. Magbanua, G.R. No. 133004,
[52]G.R.
No. 94471,
[55]Ibid.
[56]A.M.
No. P-03-1692, rollo, p. 206.
[60]Pres. Dec.
No. 807, Art. XI, Sec. 36(b) (21). See also Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service, Rule IV, Sec. 52(c) (9).
[62]Omnibus
Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and other Civil Service
Laws, Rule XIV, Sec. 22. See also Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service, Rule IV, Sec. 52.
[63]Section
44 of Rule 130 states:
“Sec.
44. Entries in official records. –
Entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by a public
officer of the