Republic of the
Supreme Court
BERNALETTE L. RAMOS,
Complainant, -
versus - SUSAN A. LIMETA, Legal Researcher, Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-06-2225 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-2027-P)
Present: CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, leonardo-de castro, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, *DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, VILLARAMA,
JR., PEREZ, SERENO,
JJ. Promulgated: November 23, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
PER CURIAM: |
|
In an
Affidavit-Complaint dated August 12, 2004,[1]
Bernalette L. Ramos charged Susan A. Limeta with Graft and Corruption, Gross
Misconduct and/or Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Employee. Limeta works as a
legal researcher in Branch 20, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, P35,000.00), as down payment for her
services in finding a competent lawyer for her cousin and in preparing the
necessary documents needed in the filing of an annulment case, including the
payment of filing fees and other administrative expenses.
According to Ramos, sometime between
July and August 2003, her mother approached Limeta regarding the prospect of
filing an annulment case against her estranged husband. Limeta agreed to assist
her cousin in the filing of an annulment case and assured her that she would
not go through the long and tedious court process, for a fee amounting to
seventy thousand pesos (P70,000.00). Ramos made a down payment of P35,000.00,
which Limeta personally received, to be used for the payment of filing fees and
for the lawyer’s services.
In October 2003, Ramos came across a
family friend, Carissa U. Sosa. As Ramos
did, Sosa had requested the assistance of Limeta in the filing of an annulment
case against her husband. She likewise paid Limeta the amount of P35,000.00
as down payment for her services. Due probably to the length of time it was
taking for her annulment case to finally be resolved, Sosa concluded and told
Ramos that Limeta extorted money from her in the same manner that the latter
had allegedly done to a certain Jocelyn Mendoza.
Alarmed by
this discovery, Ramos requested her lawyer-friend, Atty. Emily Aliño-Geluz, to
accompany her to the chambers of Judge Lucencio N. Tagle, Presiding Judge of
Branch 20, RTC of Imus, Cavite. After
their introduction, Ramos informed Judge Tagle of the problem she had with his
court employee. The judge seemed unsurprised of Ramos’s revelations and told
her that this was not the first instance that someone had complained against
Limeta regarding money matters.
In his
effort to resolve the situation, Judge Tagle called Limeta to his chambers and
asked her to return the money she owed Ramos. Limeta answered in the vernacular that she
would return the money to Ramos at the end of the month, and for her not to
worry about getting her money back. Unsatisfied with this assurance, Ramos
handed out a promissory note for Limeta to sign; the latter, however,
refused. Furious by the distrust
displayed by one she considered a relative, Limeta walked out of the judge’s
chambers, leaving the matter between her and Ramos unresolved. The events that transpired within Judge
Tagle’s chambers were attested to by Atty. Geluz in her affidavit.[2]
On August 18, 2004, Ramos and Sosa
filed separate affidavit-complaints against Limeta, for graft and corruption,
gross misconduct and conduct not only unbecoming of a government employee, but
also prejudicial to the best interest of the service.[3] For her part, Ramos filed her complaint after
unheeded demands to return the P35,000.00 she paid to Limeta. Ramos
noticed that her annulment case had not moved since she made the down payment to
Limeta, and suspected that the latter used the money for her own personal
benefit and not for the purpose of filing the annulment case in accordance with
their agreement.
In an Indorsement dated
Limeta vehemently denied all the accusations
against her in her submitted counter-affidavit. She argued that there was no
evidence to prove that she received money from Ramos. She suspected that the real reason Ramos
filed the complaint was because of her knowledge and involvement in a family
argument concerning a property, owned by an aunt, whose title was transferred
to Ramos through deceitful means. Driven by this motivation, Ramos filed her
complaint with malicious intent to harass and humiliate her, and to eventually
cause her to resign from her work.
On
After a thorough investigation, Judge
Quisumbing recommended Limeta’s suspension for three (3) months without pay.[7] In weighing the evidence presented by the
parties, the judge favored the testimonies of Ramos and her witness, Atty.
Geluz. According to his assessment, their testimonies demonstrated truthfulness
as they narrated their story in a categorical, straightforward and candid
manner. He also took into consideration the decision of the Court in A.M. No.
P-04-1908[8]
where Limeta was given a one-year suspension for gross misconduct. In that case, Limeta was found liable when
she helped a prospective litigant secure the services of a lawyer and accepted
money from the litigant for the filing of a case for the declaration of nullity
of marriage, in the very same court where she was employed as legal researcher.
In a Memorandum dated
We agree and adopt the recommendation of the OCA in imposing
on Limeta the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the service for grave
misconduct.
Grave
misconduct is a serious transgression of some established and definite rule of
action (such as unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer or
employee) that tends to threaten the very existence of the system of
administration of justice an official or employee serves.[11] It may manifest itself in corruption, or in
other similar acts, done with the clear intent to violate the law or in flagrant
disregard of established rules.[12] It is considered as a grave offense under the
Civil Service Law,[13] with the corresponding penalty of dismissal
from the service, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave
credits), and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government
service.
In the
present case, Limeta committed grave misconduct when she accepted money from
the complainant as payment for her services in assisting the latter in filing
an annulment case against her husband.
In doing so, Limeta violated Section 2, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct
for Court Personnel, which provides that “[c]ourt personnel shall not solicit
or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any explicit understanding that
such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions.” The necessity of acting with propriety and
decorum is highlighted in Section 1 of the same Code of Conduct, which provides
that “[c]ourt personnel shall not use their official position to secure unwarranted
benefits, privileges or exemptions for themselves or for others.”
In our
examination of the records, we found the testimonies of complainant Ramos and
her witness, Atty. Geluz, as sufficient evidence to hold Limeta
administratively liable for grave misconduct. The categorical and positive
declarations made by Ramos, which were corroborated by the statements made
under oath by Atty. Geluz, cannot but prevail over the plain denial Limeta
made. In case of contradictory declarations and statements,
positive testimonies carry greater weight than mere denials.[14]
We also judicially notice that this is not the first time that Limeta was involved in acts of impropriety as an employee of the court. In Salazar v. Limeta,[15] this Court already suspended Limeta for a year after having been found guilty of gross misconduct for committing the same act – receiving money from a party-litigant in exchange for her assistance in hiring a lawyer and in filing a court case for declaration of nullity of marriage. The penalty of dismissal is definitely warranted in the present case considering that Limeta was previously warned that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.
Time and
again, we have held that court personnel carry a heavy burden of responsibility
in their roles as keepers of the public faith. They must adhere to high ethical
standards to preserve the Court’s good name and standing, and to be examples of
responsibility, competence and efficiency. They should be constantly reminded
that any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of
official functions must always be avoided.[16]
Any conduct, act or omission on the part of those who would violate the norm of
public accountability and diminish, or even just tend to diminish, the faith of
the people in the judiciary cannot be countenanced.[17]
As we held in
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.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Susan A. Limeta, legal researcher, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20,
Imus,
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
(on wellness leave) MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
JOSE PORTUGAL
PEREZ Associate Justice |
|
JOSE CATRAL Associate Justice |
MARIA Associate Justice |
* On wellness leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[2] Id. at 3-4.
[3] Id. at 29-31.
[4] Id. at 10.
[5] Id. at 21.
[6] Id. at 22-23.
[7] Id. at 106-110.
[8] Salazar v. Limeta, August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 27.
[9] Rollo, pp. 113-115.
[10] Also known as the Administrative Code of 1987.
[11] Fernandez v. Gatan, A.M. No. P-03-1720,
[12] Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Organo, G.R. No. 149549,
[13] Section 23, Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order
No. 292, as amended by CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 19 (1999).
[14]
People v. Antoni,
G.R. No. 107950,
Appeals, 171 Phil. 354, 364 (1978).
[15] A.M. No. P-04-1908, August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 27.
[16] Apuyan, Jr. v.
Sta. Isabel, A.M. No. P-01-1497,
Quitalig, 400 SCRA 391 (2003).
[17] Office of the Court Administrator v.
Bernardino, A.M. No.
P-97-1258,
119-120.
[18] 333 Phil. 508, 510 (1996); In Re: Affidavit of Frankie Calabines v. Luis N. Gnilo, et al., A.M. No. 04-5-20-SC, March 14, 2007, 518 SCRA 268.