EN BANC
|
SAMMY RODRIGUEZ, Complainant, - versus - JAIME C. EUGENIO, Process Server,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 123, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No. P-06-2216 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-2037-P) Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO
MORALES, CALLEJO,
SR., AZCUNA,
TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO,
JR., and NACHURA,
JJ. Promulgated: April 20, 2007 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Per Curiam:
This is an administrative complaint
filed by complainant Sammy Rodriguez against respondent Jaime C. Eugenio,
Process Server at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Complainant
alleges that he is the uncle of Sonny Acbay, accused in Criminal Case No.
C-69159 for Robbery filed before
The complaint states that sometime in
June 2004, he went to Atty. Isabelo E. Sicat (Atty. Sicat), Public Attorney’s
Office (PAO) counsel de officio of his nephew Acbay, to inquire about the latter’s case and was told to follow it up at the
staff room of Caloocan City RTC-Branch 121.
On his way to Branch 121, he met respondent who offered to work on the
dismissal of the criminal case against his nephew. Respondent asked complainant for P300.00
which the latter promptly paid up. A
week later, respondent again asked P500.00 ostensibly to be given to
Meycauayan policemen. On several
occasions thereafter, complainant avers that he had given respondent an additional
aggregate amount of P1,700.00 for the dismissal of the case against his
nephew.
On P1,500.00 (P1,000.00 for Atty. Sicat and P500.00
for transportation to serve the subpoena) the case will be dismissed. Since he did not have any money with him, he
agreed to give the money late afternoon the next day.
Thereafter, complainant sought the
help of Erwin Tulfo of ABS-CBN. The next
day, P1,500.00 to
respondent, who was then apprehended.
Later,
respondent was charged with robbery, docketed as Criminal Case No. C-71514,
before the
On
Parenthetically, Atty. Sicat of the
PAO accomplished an Affidavit[2]
attesting that he is the resident public attorney of Caloocan City RTC-Branch
121, and the counsel de officio of
accused Sonny Acbay in Criminal Case No. C-69159; and that he never tasked
respondent to demand money from anyone for the dismissal of a case, much less,
did he ever receive money from respondent.
In
his Comment[3] dated
On
Respectfully
submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation
that the instant administrative complaint be docketed as a regular
administrative case and respondent Jaime C. Eugenio be DISMISSED from the
service with forfeiture of his retirement benefits except accrued leave
credits, if any, and with prejudice to his reinstatement in government service.[5]
On
On
Complainant
failed to file his manifestation despite notice sent and received by him.
Resultantly,
the case was submitted for decision based on the pleadings filed.
The
Court, after examining the records of the case, upholds the findings of the
OCA.
At
the outset, we reiterate the settled rule that a complainant who suddenly
changes his mind cannot simply withdraw an administrative complaint filed
against an official or employee of the judiciary.
Administrative actions cannot depend
on the will or pleasure of the complainant who may, for reasons of his own,
condone what may be detestable. Neither
can the Court be bound by the unilateral act of the complainant in a matter
relating to its disciplinary power. Desistance
cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction to investigate and decide the
complaint against the respondent. To be
sure, public interest is at stake in the conduct and actuations of officials
and employees of the judiciary. And the
program and efforts of this Court in improving the delivery of justice to the
people should not be frustrated and put to naught by private arrangements
between the parties.[8]
The issue in administrative cases is not whether the
complainant has a cause of action against the respondent, but whether the
employee against whom the complaint is filed has breached the norms and
standards of service in the judiciary. Clearly,
this Court has the power and the duty to root out misconduct among its
employees, regardless of the complainant’s desistance.[9] Besides, the Desistance mentioned by
respondent refers to the affidavit[10] executed
by complainant in the Robbery case filed before the Caloocan City
2. That after due deliberation and studying regarding the circumstances surrounding the facts of the case that lead to the filing of the complaint, I was convinced that there was no criminal intent on the part of the accused and that the incident arose merely out of petty misunderstanding and misapprehension of facts;
3. That I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing and to inform the Court that I am desisting and no longer interested in further pursuing the above-criminal case;
4.
That I am further executing this affidavit of my own free will and voluntary
act and deed without any force, intimidation, as monetary consideration on my
part.[11]
It is well-settled that in administrative
proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence
the allegations in his complaint.[12] Substantial evidence is the amount of relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.[13]
Evidence to support a conviction in a criminal case is not necessary, as the
standard of integrity demanded of members of the Bench is not satisfied and
merely allows one to escape the penalties of the criminal law.[14] In the case at bar, complainant adduced substantial
evidence to support his allegations.
As
gleaned from the complainant’s affidavit-complaint, respondent demanded sums of
money for the dismissal of the criminal case against complainant’s nephew.
4.
Noon din ay nag-follow-up ako sa
staff room ng Branch 121 at nakausap ko si Jimmy Eugenio na nagsabi sa akin na
lalakarin daw niya ma-dismiss ang kaso magbigay lamang ako sa kanya ng tatlong
daang (P300.00) piso;
5. Nagbigay ako ng
tatlong daang (P300.00) piso kay Jimmy Eugenio noong araw na iyon mismo.
6. Makalipas ang
isang lingo pagkabigay ko ng tatlong daang (P300.00) piso kay Jimmy
Eugenio, sinabihan na naman ako ni Jimmy na magbigay sa kanya ng 500 pesos para
ibigay daw niya sa pulis Meycauayan;
7. Muli ay nagbigay
ako sa kanya (Jimmy) ng limandaang (P500.00) piso noong buwan din ng
Junio, 2004;
8. Noong July 2004, hindi pa rin na-dismiss
ang kaso ng aking pamangkin. Nag-text sa akin si Jimmy at sinabi na pumunta ako
sa Branch 121. Nagkita kami sa Branch 121 at muli ay nanghingi si Jimmy ng
tatlong daang (P300.00) piso para daw pambili ng papel at panlakad ng
subpoena. Ako ay nagbigay sa kanya ng tatlong daan (P300.00) piso dahil
sa hangarin ko na ma-dismiss ang kaso ng aking pamangkin;
9. Noong July 2004 nagkita kami muli ni
Jimmy sa husgado at siya ay nagpadagdag ng 200 piso. Muli ay nagbigay uli ako
kay Jimmy ng dalawandaang (P200.00) piso;
10. Makalipas ang
isang lingo matapos ang aking bigay na dalawandaang (P200.00) piso,
noong buwan din ng Julio, 2004 ay muling nagpadagdag si Jimmy ng tatlong daang
(P300.00) piso 300 piso (sic) dahil kulang daw ang perang ibinigay ko
para ma-dismiss ang kaso;
11. Hindi pa rin
nadi-dismiss ang kaso ng aking pamangkin noong buwan ng Agosto, 2004. Nagkita kami ni Jimmy sa husgado at muli ay
nanghingi si Jimmy ng 900 piso. Dahil sa
kawalan ng sapat na 900 piso ang halagang ito ay sinikap ko na maibigay sa
kanya mula sa pagsasangla ng bracelet ng aking anak at isang VCD. Hinulugan ko kay Jimmy
ang siyam na raang (P900.00) piso na hinihingi niya ng tatlong (3) beses
na instllment na tig-tatatlong daang (P300.00) piso;
12. Matapos kong maibigay kay Jimmy ang
kumpletong siyam na raang (P900.00) piso, hindi pa rin nadi-dismiss ang
kaso ng aking pamangkin;
13. Noong Septiembre 14, 2004, matapos ang hearing ng aking pamangkin na si Sonny Acbay sa RTC Branch 121 at ma-reset na naman ang kaso, kinausap ko si Atty. Sicat kung bakit hindi nadi-dismiss ang kaso ng aking pamangkin samantalang ang private complainant na si Geraldine Calderon ay di sumisipot at wala na sa kanyang tinitirahan sa Valenzuela City. Nagpaliwanag si Atty. Sicat na kailangan nakasulat sa return ng subpoena na wala na ang nagrereklamo sa kanyang address na natala sa Information. Sinabi pa ni Atty. Sicat na na-reset ang kaso dahil wala pang return ang notice kay Geraldine Calderon;
14. Dakong
15. Nang nakaalis na si Atty. Sicat, nagsabi sa akin si Jimmy ng ganito, “Magbigay ka ng halagang 1,500 piso. Ang isang libo ay ibibigay kay Atty. Sicat at ang 500 piso ay pamasahe para sa pagpapadala ng subpoena.” Ang sabi ni Jimmy ay ibigay ko ang pera sa kanya sa dakong hapon ng araw na iyon. Nagtaka ako kung bakit hinihingan ako ni Jimmy ng 1,000 piso para kay Atty. Sicat at kung bakit sa kanya (Jimmy) ko ibibigay samantalang hindi naman ako hinihingan ng pera ni Atty. Sicat at sa simula pa lamang na makilala ko si Atty. Sicat ay sinabihan na niya ako na libre at walang bayad and serbisyo ng PAO lawyer na tulad niya. Sinabihan pa rin ako ni Atty. Sicat na bawal ang magbigay ng pera o anuman pabuya sa kanilang mga PAO lawyer. Gayunman ay sinagot ko si Jimmy na wala akong pera ng araw na iyon at ako ay nakiusap sa kanya na bukas na lamang ibibigay ang naturang halaga;
16. Dahil sa walang-wala na akong pera na
pambigay sa hinihingi ni Jimmy na isang libo limandaang (P1,500) piso,
ako ay nagsadya kay G. Erwin Tulfo ng ABS CBN noong dakong hapon ng Septiembre
14, 2004. Ang sabi ko kay G. Erwin
Tulfo, “Yung pamangkin ko nakakulong sa
17. Kinabukasan, dakong ika-3 ng hapon,
Septiembre 15, 2004, muli ay nagsadya ako kay G. Erwin Tulfo. Sinamahan ako ni G. Erwin Tulfo at kami ay
nagtungo na sa
The
evidence presented by the complainant is sufficient to convince the proper
authorities to conduct an entrapment of respondent. In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to
for the purpose of ensuring and capturing the law-breakers in the execution of
their criminal plan.[16] Entrapment has received judicial sanction as
long as it is carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal
safeguards. Furthermore, there is no
scintilla of evidence that the manner in which the National Bureau of Investigation
agents conducted the operation was tainted with illegality. We rule that absent strong and convincing
proof to the contrary, this Court is bound by the presumption that the
arresting officers were aware of the legal mandates in effecting arrest and
strictly complied with the same.[17]
In Co v. Calimag, Jr.,[18]
this Court said: “[a]n accusation of bribery is easy to concoct and difficult
to disprove, thus, to our mind, the complainant must present a panoply of
evidence in support of such an accusation.”
In order that the allegation of a charge of this nature may not be
considered a fairy tale, evidence, other than the doubtful and questionable
verbal testimony of a lone witness, should be adduced. Entrapment should have
been pursued. Evidence of a reasonable
report to police authorities should have been presented. Record of where the bribe money came from, its
specific denominations and the manner respondent accepted and disposed of it
should have been clearly shown.
In the case at bar, evidence on
record shows that complainant has complied with these requirements, such as:
1.
On
2.
Complainant and Erwin Tulfo went to the Caloocan Police Station to report the
matter;
3.
Entrapment in the vicinity of the Judicial Complex was conducted with
complainant handing the white envelope containing P1,500.00 to
respondent;
4.
The front left pocket of respondent’s pants tested positive for the presence of
ultraviolet fluorescent powder, based on the laboratory report of the
Philippine National Police, Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office,
Caloocan City Police Station.
Clearly,
respondent solicited and received money from the complainant for the dismissal
of the criminal case against the latter’s nephew. The probative weight of the
affidavit-complaint of the complainant as well as the results of the entrapment
cannot be overcome by the latter’s bare denials.
A
perusal of respondent’s Sinumpaang
Salaysay[19]
reveals that while he denies all the
allegations that he asked and received money from complainant on several
occasions, he failed to set forth the substance of the matters upon which he
relies to support his denial. It is settled that denial is inherently a weak
defense. To be believed, it must be
buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is
purely self-serving and is with nil evidentiary value. Like the defense of
alibi, a denial crumbles in the light of positive declarations.[20]
In
an effort to escape liability, he interposes the defense that on
This
Court is not persuaded by respondent’s version that he was framed up. Frame-up
as a defense has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can
just easily be concocted but is quite difficult to prove. And the defense of
frame-up must be proved by clear and convincing evidence because it is of the
same category as alibi. In the case at
bar, respondent failed to present convincing evidence to substantiate his
claim. Worth noting is that there is no proof on record that complainant was
induced or influenced by any improper motive to perpetrate such “set-up.”
The Court also addresses respondent’s
defense of absence of fluorescent powder on his hands. This is a lame excuse. Laboratory report of
the Philippine National Police, Northern Police District Crime Laboratory
Office, Caloocan City Police Station, showed presence of ultraviolet
fluorescent powder on the front left pocket of respondent’s pants which
coincides with his own admission that the money was placed in his pocket.
Lastly, in the affidavit of Atty. Sicat, he
vigorously denied that he asked respondent to demand money in exchange for the dismissal
of the case, much less received any single centavo from respondent. These clearly demonstrate that respondent had
been working alone and further highlight his sole liability for his wrongful
actions.
Respondent
has clearly demonstrated his failure to observe the standard and behavior
required of an employee in the judiciary and he cannot avoid responsibility for
his acts. He has shown beyond doubt his
unfitness for public office. The
judiciary must be cleansed of corrupt employees like Eugenio or run the risk of
eroding the public confidence.
Respondent
as Process Server serves Court processes such as subpoenas, subpoenas duces tecum, summonses, court orders and
notices; prepares and submits returns of service of processes; monitors
messages and/or delivers Court mail matters; keeps in custody and maintains a
record book of all mail matters received and dispatched by the Court; and
performs such other duties as may be assigned by the Presiding Judge/Clerk of
Court.[21]
Clearly, then respondent should have known that he had absolutely no power or
authority to talk to litigants and give false hopes regarding their cases.
We
cannot overly emphasize our previous pronouncements that, circumscribed as it is
with a heavy burden of responsibility, the official and nonofficial conduct required
of court personnel - from the presiding judge to the rank and file - must
always be beyond reproach. It is
imperative that they maintain the good name and standing of the court as a true
temple of justice, the administration of which is a sacred task. By the very nature of their duties and
responsibilities, all those involved in it - from the highest officials to the
lower employees - must faithfully adhere to and hold inviolate the principle
solemnly enshrined in our Constitution: that a public office is a public trust.
Public
service requires utmost integrity and discipline. A public servant must exhibit at all times
the highest sense of honesty and integrity for no less than the Constitution
mandates the principle that “a public office is a public trust and all public
officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.”[22] All public officers and employees, especially
those in the judiciary, must at all times exercise a high degree of professionalism
and responsibility, which includes optimum performance of duties. Hence, this Court shall never countenance any
conduct, act or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability
and diminish or even just tend to diminish public confidence in the judiciary.
As the
administration of justice is a sacred task, the persons involved in it ought to
live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity.[23] Their conduct, at all times, must not only be
characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be above
suspicion. Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity,
uprightness and honesty.[24]
Misconduct
has been defined as any unlawful conduct, on the part of the person concerned
with the administration of justice, prejudicial to the rights of the parties or
to the right determination of the cause.
It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a
premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.
The term, however, does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal
intent.[25] Misconduct is a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of
duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior;[26]
while “gross” has been defined as “out of all measure beyond allowance;
flagrant; shameful; such conduct as is not to be excused.”[27]
Respondent’s
act of demanding and receiving money from the uncle of a party litigant
constitutes grave misconduct in office. It
is this kind of gross and flaunting misconduct, no matter how nominal the
amount involved on the part of those who are charged with the responsibility of
administering the law and rendering justice quickly, which erodes the respect
for law and the courts.[28]
Pursuant
to Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive
Order 292, Grave Misconduct, being in the nature of grave offenses, carries the
extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement
benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment
in government service.[29]
In
addition, respondent’s solicitation of money from complainant in exchange for a
favorable decision violates Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel
which took effect on
SECTON 1. Court Personnel shall not use their official position to secure unwarranted benefits, privileges, or exemption for themselves or for others.
SECTION 2. Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit on any explicit or implicit understanding that such gift shall influence their official actions.
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]
The
following are cases of misconduct committed by court employees who demanded money
from litigants and were meted the penalty of dismissal:
In
Frankie N. Calabines v. Luis N. Gnilo,
Dolor M. Catoc v. Feliciano Calinga, Evelyn L. Caguitla, Luis N. Gnilo and
Atty. Michael P. Musico,[31] the penalty of dismissal was imposed on four
employees of the Court of Appeals for receiving a sum of money from party
litigants in exchange for a supposed decision which did not actually exist.
In
Re: Criminal Case No. MC-02-5637 Against
Arturo V. Peralta and Larry C. De Guzman, Employees of MeTC, Br. 31, Q. C.,[32] a
clerk of court and a sheriff were dismissed from service for receiving marked
money from a litigant in exchange for the execution of a writ.
In
Hidalgo v. Magtibay,[33]
a process server and a jail officer were dismissed from service for asking
grease money in the amount of P2,000.00 to facilitate the release from
detention of a certain Dionisio Catimbang who had a pending case in the Tanuan
City RTC- Branch 6.
In
Office of the Court Administrator v.
Morante,[34]
we ruled that the abominable act of a clerk of court of extorting money in
exchange for court orders warrants his dismissal from service and imposition of
accessory penalties.
In
Fabian v. Galo,[35]
a court stenographer was dismissed from service when she demanded and received
various sums of money on the promise that she would obtain a favorable decision
for a litigant.
In
Office of the Court Administrator v. Barron,[36]
a judge was dismissed for demanding and receiving money from a party litigant. The conduct of respondent judge shows that he
can be influenced by monetary considerations.
We have been resolute in our drive to
discipline and, if warranted, to remove from the service errant magistrates,
employees and even justices of higher collegiate appellate courts[37]
for ANY infraction which tends to give the Judiciary a bad name. To underscore our earnestness in this pursuit,
we have, in fact, been unflinching in imposing discipline on errant personnel[38]
or in purging the ranks of those undeserving to remain in the service.[39] We can do no less in the case at bar.
WHEREFORE, Jaime C. Eugenio is found GUILTY of Gross Misconduct. He is DISMISSED
from service effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits,
except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or
instrumentality in the government, including government-owned and controlled
corporations.
SO ORDERED.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice |
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
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 |
DANTE O.
TINGA
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
CANCIO C.
GARCIA
Associate
Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
[1] Rollo, pp-1-2.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Rizon v. Judge Zerna, 417 Phil. 634, 639 (2001).
[9] Gamboa v. Gamboa, A.M. No. P-04-1836,
[10] Rollo, p. 17.
[11]
[12] Cruz
v. Aliño-Hormachuelos, A.M. No. CA-04-38,
[13] Aspiras v. Abalos, 457 Phil. 352, 361-362 (2003).
[14] Office
of the Court Administrator v. Morante, A.M. No. P-02-1555,
[15] Rollo, pp. 4-5.
[16] People
v. Lapatha, G.R. No. L-63074-75,
[17] Mallari
v. Court of Appeals, 333 Phil. 289, 297 (1996).
[18] 389 Phil. 389, 395 (2000) citing Castaños v. Escaño, 321 Phil. 527, 538 (1995).
[19] Rollo, pp. 14-15.
[20] Jugueta v. Estacio, A.M. No. CA-04-17-P,
[21] Manuals for Clerks of Court, p. 33.
[22] Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution.
[23] Hernandez v. Borja, 312 Phil. 199, 204 (1995).
[24] Basco v. Gregorio, 315 Phil. 681, 688 (1995).
[25] Salazar
v. Limeta, A.M. No. P-04-1908,
[26] BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 5th
Edition, p. 901, cited in Vidallon-Magtolis
v. Salud, A.M. No. CA-05-20-P,
[27]
[28] Office
of the Court Administrator v. Gaticales, A.M. No. MTJ-92-528,
[29] Office of the Court Administrator v. Magno, 419 Phil. 593, 602 (2001); Sec. 22(a), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), as amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999 (a).
[30] Mendoza v. Tiongson, 333 Phil. 508, 516 (1996).
[31] A.M. No. 04-5-20-SC,
[32] A.M. No. 03-11-29-SC,
[33] A.M. No. P-02-1661,
[34] A.M. No. P-02-1555,
[35] A.M. No. P-96-1214,
[36] A.M. No. RTJ 98-1420,
[37] Re:
Complaint Against Justice Elvi John Asuncion
of the Court of Appeals, A.M. No. 06-6-8-CA, Atty. Roberto C. Padilla v. Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion,
Court of Appeals, A.M. No. 06-44-CA-J, 20 March 2007; In Re:
Derogatory New Items Charging Court of Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio
Demetria with Interference on Behalf of a Suspended Drug Queen, A.M. No.
00-7-09-CA, 27 March 2001, 355 SCRA 366;
In the Matter of the Alleged Improper
Conduct of Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr., Taking An
Ambulance But Proceeding To The GMA TV Station For An Interview Instead of
Proceeding Fortwith To The Hospital, A.M. Nos. 01-12-01-SC and SB-02-10-J,
16 January 2003, 395 SCRA 231; Canson v.
Garchitorena, 370 Phil. 287.
[38] A. M. No. 04-5-20-SC, Re: Report on the Unauthorized Use by
Bernardo S. Ditan, an Employee of this Court of the Lite Ace with Plate No.
SEA-746, A.M. No. 02-09-SC,
[39] Re: Affidavit of Frankie N. Calabines, A
Member of the Co-Terminus Staff of Justice Josefina Guevarra-Salonga, Relative
to Some Anomalies Related to No. 73287 “Candy Maker, Inc., v. Republic of the
Philippines, Frankie N. Calabines v. Luid N. Gnolo, Feliciano Calinga, Utility
Worker I; Evelyn L. Caguitla, Court Stenographer IV; Luis Gnoli, Utility Worker
I and Atty. Edwin Michael P. Musico, Court Attorney IV-CT, 14 March 2007.