SECOND DIVISION
|
Judge FATIMA GONZALES-ASDALA,
Petitioner,
- versus - VICTOR
PEDRO A. YANEZA (Legal Researcher II)
Respondent. x------------------------------------------x Judge
FATIMA GONZALES- ASDALA,
Petitioner,
Petitioner, - versus - VICTOR
PEDRO A. YANEZA (Legal Researcher),
Respondent. x------------------------------------------x VICTOR PEDRO A. YANEZA,
Petitioner, - versus - JUDGE
FATIMA GONZALES-ASDALA,
Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-08-2455 [formerly OCA I.P.I. No.
05-2175-P] Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, AZCUNA,* and BRION, JJ.
Promulgated: April 30, 2008 A.M. No. P-08-2456 [formerly OCA I.P.I. No.
05-2228-P] A.M. No. RTJ-08-2113 [formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2449-RTJ]
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
The first two complaints subject of the
present resolution merited a counter-complaint -- the third subject case.
In OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2175-P, complainant Judge Fatima Gonzales
Asdala (Judge Asdala), then Presiding Judge of Branch 87 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of
It appears that the Notice of Appeal
was filed on
In his Explanation[2] in
compliance with Judge Asdala’s February 19, 2005 memorandum to him,
Yaneza stated that since appeals in special proceedings should be by record of
appeal and not by notice of appeal, “there was no necessity to call the
attention of the Presiding Judge for the reason that she is not under any
obligation to act on a wrongful pleading or a wrong method of appeal.”[3]
In the Comment[4] he
filed on
x x
x there is a more sinister motive behind Judge Asdala’s actions and
inaction in relation to the Estate of Li Guat and Chua Kay. xxx Sometime in February 2003 Judge
Asdala misused her office and meddled in a case represented by Atty. Marcelino
Bautista, former RTC Judge of
Yaneza later claimed, during the
hearing of OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2175-P conducted by the OCA, that on Judge
Asdala’s instruction, he inserted the Notice of Appeal in a folder of
pending incidents which was placed on a table near the entrance to Judge
Asdala’s chamber.[8]
In OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2228-P, Judge Asdala, by letter of
In support of her charges, Judge
Asdala alleged as follows: She issued to Yaneza Memorandum No. 24 directing him
to submit case reports, together with their attachments, for November and
December 2005, and to make the necessary corrections therein following their
rejection by the OCA, but that despite repeated verbal instructions, Yaneza
failed to comply therewith; and
that on April 1, 2005, Yaneza wrote her that it was not his responsibility to
submit the attachments and correct the reports.
Judge Asdala further alleged:
From
By letter of May 10, 2005 to the
Executive Judge,[10] and by
way of Comment/Complaint[11]
filed before the OCA, Yaneza explained that he tried to have the reports
brought to the OCA by the process server but failed because Judge Asdala had
been sending the process server on private errands and she did not allow anyone
other than herself to give orders to him (process server).
Yaneza added that Judge Asdala has a
“propensity to order the Court Process Server to do unusual tasks like
driving her children to school,”[12]
and that she was in fact fined by this Court for utilizing the Court Deputy
Sheriff to do things for her own interest.[13]
Explaining further, Yaneza alleged
that he requested Rowena Agulo, the clerk in charge of civil cases, bring the
reports to the OCA but she was not allowed by Myrla Nicandro who acted as
officer-in-charge (OIC) of Branch 87. Furthermore, Yaneza claimed:
The trouble with the Office is that there is much confusion, there are two (2) OIC[s], one Ms. Amy Soneja who was properly designated by the Supreme Court and the other Ms. Myrla Nicandro who was not appointed by the Supreme Court but presents herself [as] and [is] treated by the Presiding Judge as the OIC, thus appearing to be a usurper;
x x x x
In Branch 87, Ms. Soneja is the properly appointed OIC by the Supreme Court[,] meaning[,] she is the only one who can exercise the powers of the Office of the Clerk of Court and no other. Myrla Nicandro not being properly appointed by the Supreme Court has no authority to present herself as OIC. It is a public misrepresentation. Any exercise of the powers of the Clerk of Court by Ms. Nicandro is [a] usurpation before our eyes. xxx Myrla Nicandro is only a stenographer by rank and has no item in the plantilla of Branch 87. She is only detailed, has been transferred from several offices[;] maybe her best qualification is that she is a kumare of the Presiding Judge and a constant companion in various activities. x x x
x x x x
It is very difficult to ask any of the clerical staff to go and file the reports [with] the Supreme Court, since they have to secure permission from a usurper OIC Myrla Nicandro[. I]n fact I requested Rowena Agulo[,] clerk in charge of civil cases[,] to file the reports but the usurper turned down her request for permission;
By way of comment [on] my application for leave, it is the practice of the Presiding Judge to allot the time in which the staff will take leave. x x x But for several years now, the Presiding Judge has not allocated any period for us to go on leave. Thus, I did not have any vacation for years. x x x
After conferring with the properly appointed OIC Ms. Amy Soneja, I submitted an application for leave dated April 1, 2005, and she in turn submitted it to the usurper OIC Myrla Nicandro, and it is only lately thru this complaint that [I] became aware that my application for leave was not approved.[14] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Annexed to Yaneza’s
On recommendation of the OCA,[16]
the Court considered Yaneza’s above-stated Comment filed at the OCA on
In her Comment[18] in
OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2449-RTJ, Judge Asdala alleged that the charges against
her were ill-motivated, reiterated her own charges against Yaneza, and
emphasized Yaneza’s alleged incompetence and laziness.
After receiving evidence on the three
cases, Hearing Officer Designate Romulo S. Quimbo made the following findings
and recommendations:
In OCA-IPI No. 05-2175-P, x x x [t]he evidence does not show that the failure of Yaneza to bring the [Notice of Appeal] to the attention of Judge Asdala was motivated by any corrupt motives. As a matter of fact, while he admitted his failure to call the attention of Judge Asdala regarding said notice of appeal, he reasoned that there was no necessity to bring it to her because it was not the proper pleading. x x x
However,
although the notice of appeal filed in the case may have been insufficient to
satisfy the rules, still it was not for him to decide. He should have brought the matter to the
complainant’s attention. When
he ruled that the said notice of appeal was not the correct pleading, he was
performing a judicial power reserved for the presiding judge.
Yaneza, however, averred that in obedience to the instructions of Judge Asdala, he had placed the notice of appeal on a table near complainant’s door together with other pending incidents. This is denied by Judge Asdala. Be that as it may, we cannot hold respondent Yaneza liable for willful concealment of the notice of appeal. No motive has been ascribed or proven against Yaneza. On the other hand, it is not denied that the counsel for the petitioners in the Li Guat case was Atty. Mauricio, the television host where the acts of Judge Asdala amounting to obstruction of justice and for which she was fined P40,000.00 in A.M. No. RTJ-05-1916 had been aired. It is not farfetched to think that the dismissal of Special Proceedings No. A-01-43860 and her failure to act on the notice of appeal was the result of some animosity which she felt against Atty. Mauricio.
In OCA-IPI No. 05-2228-P, x x x respondent Yaneza was in duty bound to prepare and submit the reports within the first week of the following month. Hence, his failure to submit the November 2004 report during December and his failure to submit the December 2004 report in early January amounts to inefficiency. His excuse that there was confusion in the office because of the two OICs is rather lame.
This inefficiency, although not particularly listed in Section 23, Rule XIV of Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code) as among the offenses that may be committed by government employees, deserves a reprimand and a stern warning that any repetition of the same would be dealt with more drastically.
Judge Asdala further charges Yaneza for abandonment of his position. She averred that she had directed her OIC to inform Yaneza that his application for leave had been disapproved. She also issued a memorandum directing Yaneza to report to the office and this memorandum was served on Yaneza by the process server who was, however, unable to serve the same personally on Yaneza.
Yaneza was unable to substantiate his charges against Judge Asdala [in OCA-IPI No. 06-2449-RTJ]. xxx
There appears to be some merit in the statement of Yaneza as regards the confusion of the personnel because of the presence of two (2) OIC’s – Ms. Amy So[n]eja, who was regularly appointed by the Supreme Court and Ms. Myrla Nicandro, who was appointed by Judge Asdala. This act of Judge Asdala is covered by x x x Memorand[a] No. 0009, s. of 2005 (pp. 81-82, Rollo, 05-2228-P) and No. 0019, s. of 2005 (Ibid., pp. 83-85). This is the reason advanced by Yaneza as regards the inefficiency of Branch 87. x x x
The undersigned recommends that OCA-IPI No. 2175-P [sic] be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent Victor Pedro A. Yaneza be reprimanded and sternly warned that a repetition of the same offense or the commission of a similar one in the future would be more drastically dealt with; that OCA-IPI No. 05-2228-P [sic] be dismissed for lack of merit and that OCA-IPI No. 06-2449-RTJ be also dismissed but Judge Asdala be required to explain why she appointed another OIC Branch Clerk considering that one had already been designated by the Court.[19] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In OCA IPI
No. 05-2175-P, this Court finds the immediately quoted findings,
as well as the recommendation, of Hearing Officer Designate Romulo S. Quimbo
well-taken.
In OCA IPI
No. 05-2228-P, the Hearing Officer Designate observes that
Yaneza’s failure to file the reports, while constituting
inefficiency, is “not particularly listed in Sec. 23, Rule IV of Book V
of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code) as among the offenses that
maybe committed by government employees.” He nevertheless recommends that Yaneza
be reprimanded.
Section 52
(c) (14) of Rule 11 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service provides that failure to process documents and complete action on documents and
papers within a reasonable time from preparation thereof, except as
otherwise provided in the rules implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees, shall be penalized with a
reprimand on the first offense, a suspension for one to 30 days on the second
offense, and dismissal on the third offense.[20] It bears noting that, as the Hearing
Officer Designate himself notes, Yaneza was “duty bound to prepare and submit the reports” on time. It is in this light that the Court finds
Yaneza to have violated Civil Service Rules.
Respecting Yaneza’s
unauthorized absences, he admits that he did not report for work from
The Revised Rules for Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service penalizes frequent unauthorized
absences with suspension of six months and one day to one year on the first
offense, and dismissal on the second offense.[25] Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 4,
series of 1991 penalizes, for habitual absenteeism, any civil service employee
who incurs unauthorized absences in excess of the allowable 2.5 monthly leave
credit under the Leave Law for at least three months in a semester or at least
three consecutive months during the year,[26]
which Supreme Court Circular No. 2-99 equates with frequent absenteeism.[27] As there is no record of Yaneza’s
available leave credits when he was absent on the dates involved in the case,
he cannot be faulted for frequent unauthorized absenteeism. Judge Aquino v. Fernandez[28] enlightens:
The reason for the requirement that employees applying for vacation leave, whenever possible, must submit in advance their applications [for] vacation leave, is to enable heads of offices to make the necessary adjustments in the work assignments among the staff so that the work may not be hampered or paralyzed. However, it is clear from [Sections 49-54 of Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations] that mere failure to file a leave of absence in advance does not ipso facto render an employee administratively liable. In case the application for vacation leave of absence is filed after the employee reports back to work but disapproved by the head of the agency, then, under Section 50[29] xxx, the employee shall not be entitled to receive his salary corresponding to the period of his unauthorized leave of absence. The unauthorized leave of absence becomes punishable only if the absence is frequent or habitual under Section 23 (q), Rule XIV of the omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations or detrimental to the service under Section 23 (r) [sic][30] or the official or employee falsified his daily time record under Section 23 (a) or (f) of the same Omnibus Civil Service Rules.[31] (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In the absence then of evidence that
Yaneza’s unauthorized absences were frequent or habitual, or that he
falsified his daily time record, or that his absence was inimical to the
interest of public service, the Court may not administratively discipline him.[32] He is, however, not entitled to receive
his salary corresponding to the period of his unauthorized absences. Following the provision of Article 2154
of the Civil Code that “[i]f something is received where there is no
right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation
to return it arises,” he must return the same if he had already received
it.
Finally, in OCA IPI No. 06-2449-RTJ, this Court finds well-taken the findings and recommendation of the
Hearing Officer Designate.
In Edaño
v. Asdala,[33] the Court, by Decision of
WHEREFORE,
OCA-I.P.I.
No. 05-2175-P is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
OCA-I.P.I.
No. 05-2228-P is REDOCKETED as a regular administrative matter. Victor Pedro A. Yaneza is found GUILTY
of violation of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service for failure to
process documents and complete action on documents and papers within a
reasonable time from preparation thereof, and is accordingly REPRIMANDED with WARNING that a
repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely.
If Yaneza had received his salary
corresponding to his unauthorized absences from
OCA-I.P.I. No.
06-2449-RTJ is DISMISSED for mootness.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate
Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice |
ARTURO N. BRION
Associate Justice
* Additional
member per Raffle dated
[1] Rollo (A.M. No. P-08-2455), pp. 1-4.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Manansala
III v. Asdala, A.M. No.
RTJ-05-1916,
[7] Rollo (OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2175-P), pp. 18-19.
[8] TSN,
[9] Rollo (OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2228-P), pp. 2-5.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Ibid. Vide
Manansala III v. Adsala, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1916,
[14] Rollo (A.M. No. P-08-2456), pp. 7-9.
[15]
[16] Rollo (A.M. No. P-08-2455), p. 55; id. at 94.
[17]
[18] Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-08-2113), pp. 60-63.
[19] Consolidated Report (not paginated).
[20] Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule IV, Section 52 (C) (14).
[21] TSN,
[22] Rollo (A.M. No. P-08-2456), p. 19.
[23] TSN,
[24] Vide id. at 14-17.
[25] Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Rule IV, Section 52 (A)(17).
[26] Vide Supreme Court Circular No. 1-91; Atty. Talion v. Ayupan, 425 Phil. 41, 52 (2002).
[27] The said circular mentions absenteeism and tardiness, even if such do not qualify as "habitual" or "frequent" under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1991.” However, Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1991 only defines “habitual” and not “frequent” absences. Thus, by implication, Supreme Court Circular No. 2-99 equates “frequent” with “habitual” absences.
[28] 460 Phil. 1 (2003).
[29] Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, Rule XVI, Section 50:
Sec. 50. Effect of unauthorized leave. – An official/employee who is absent without approved leave shall not be entitled to receive his salary corresponding to the period of his unauthorized absence. It is understood, however, that his absence shall no longer be deducted from his accumulated leave credits, if there is any.
[30] Section 23 (r) refers to “refusal to perform official duty.” “Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service” is in Section 23 (t).
[31] Judge Aquino v. Fernandez, supra note 28 at 11-12. Citations omitted.
[32] Vide id. at 12.
[33] Edaño v. Asdala, A.M.
No. RTJ-06-1974,
[34]