| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
869 Phil. 562
EN BANC
[ A.M. No. P-14-3188 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3879-P), January 28, 2020 ]
ARLENE L. AMBROSIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. SOLMINIO B. DELAS ARMAS, SHERIFF IV, BRANCH 265, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
This resolves the Complaint[1] filed on May 23, 2012 by Arlene L. Ambrosio (complainant) against Sheriff IV Solminio Delas Armas ( Sheriff Delas Armas) of Branch 265, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, for Oppression, Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Harassment, and Unethical Conduct in violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 in relation to R.A. No. 3019.
Antecedents
Complainant filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in Default[2] in Civil Case No. 72902-PSG, entitled Arlene Ambrosio v. New RBW Marketing, Inc. and Kevin Manaloto pending before Branch 265, RTC, Pasig City in which Delas Armas was the branch sheriff. The said motion was denied in the Order[3] dated February 16, 2012, copies of which were sent to the parties and their respective counsel by registered mail on March 2, 2012, while complainant received her copy on March 8, 2012.[4]
The next day, Cesar, with his friend Cyril Manaoag (Cyril), went to Branch 265, RTC of Pasig City to secure a copy of the order. They met Sheriff Delas Annas who showed them the order and its dispositive portion denying complainant's motion to declare defendants in default. Cesar told Sheriff Delas Armas that he will just accept the order although aggrieved. However, Sheriff Delas Armas retorted: "Ha, Payag ka na dyan sa order DENIED?" Thereafter, they went outside the office to talk privately, to wit:
At 1:00 p.m. of the same day Sheriff Delas Armas texted Cesar saying that he was not able to convince the OIC and the Judge to change the order because the said order had already been made. The corresponding text messsages are as follows:
On March 2, 2012, Cesar and Cyril returned to Branch 265 and met with respondent Sheriff Delas Armas at the 6th floor of the Hall of Justice where an argument ensued between Cesar and respondent, to wit:
Cyril heard the whole conversation as he was with Cesar the whole time he was conversing with Sheriff Delas Armas.[10]
Respondents Position
Respondent Sheriff Delas Armas vehemently denied the complainant's accusations against him contending that the allegations against him are purely fabricated coming from a litigant who obtained an unfavorable order from the court.
Respondent denied to have ever represented to Cesar that he could, in any way, influence the decision of the Honorable Judge. Moreover, respondent denied having asked Cesar money or otherwise in exchange for influencing the Court to change its unfavorable order to the complainant.
Respondent also stated that he does not know Cesar nor the complainant personally.[11]
In a Resolution dated February 10, 2014, the instant administrative matter was referred to the Executive Judge of RTC Pasig City for investigation, report and recommendation.[12]
Report and Recommendation
In his Report and Recommendation,[13] Investigating Judge Danilo S. Cruz (Judge Cruz) recommended that respondent Sheriff Solminio B. Delas Armas be meted the penalty of suspension for one (1) month without salary with stern warning that repetition of the same or similar act of misconduct shall be dealt with more severely, and we quote:
The Court's Ruling
We agree and adopt the recommendation of the OCA in imposing on Sheriff Delas Armas the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the service for grave misconduct.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer.[17] It is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior and to constitute an administrative offense, the misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer.[18] In order to differentiate gross misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, and not a mere error of judgment, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in the former.[19]
In a long line of cases, this Court has held that solicitation or receiving money from litigants by court personnel constitutes grave misconduct.[20] Under Section 46 (A) of Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, this is punishable by dismissal from service even for the first offense. While there are cases in which the Court has mitigated the imposable penalty for humanitarian reasons and other considerations such as length of service, acknowledgment of infractions, feelings of remorse, and family circumstances,[21] none of these is applicable to the case at hand. Hence, respondent's dismissal is proper.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds no reason to depart from the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator that the evidence on record sufficiently demonstrate respondent Sheriff Delas Armas' culpability for grave misconduct. This being an administrative proceeding, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[22] This requirement has been met in this case.
In the instant case, it is clear that in the afternoon of February 29, 2012, respondent Sheriff Delas Armas contacted Cesar through a series of text messages regarding Arlene's Motion to Declare Defendants in Default in Civil Case No. 72902-PSG then pending before Branch 265, RTC of Pasig City. The series of text messages are as follows:
The above-mentioned conversation jived with the text messages between Cesar and respondent which proves that the latter tried to extort money from Cesar in exchange for a favorable ruling regarding complainant Arlene's motion, to wit:
In sum, there are three acts where the respondent can be made liable for. First, communicating to a litigant who had a pending case in court where he was assigned; Second, showing a court order, which was not yet released to the parties, to persons who were not privy thereto, in violation of Section 1, Canon II of the New Code of Judicial Conduct; and Third, making it appear that he could influence a judge to modify or change the prepared order in exchange for money, which constitutes grave misconduct.
The Court has always emphasized that all members of the judiciary should be free from any whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to their duties in the judicial branch but also to their behavior outside the court as private individuals, in order that the integrity and good name of the courts of justice be preserved.[25] Court personnel cannot take advantage of the vulnerability of desperate party-litigants for monetary gain.
Grave misconduct merits dismissal.[26] In some cases, the court exercised its discretion to assess mitigating circumstances such as length of service or the fact that a transgression might be the first infraction of respondent. However, due to the gravity of the acts of respondent, no mitigating circumstances can be appreciated.
Throughout the years this court has received many complaints from party-litigants against court employees extorting money from them. This court has already heard various reasons given by court employees for receiving money from party-litigants. However, there is no defense that could justify asking or receiving money from party litigants. The act itself makes court employees guilty of grave misconduct. They must bear the penalty of dismissal.[27]
Employees of the judiciary should be guided to be circumspect in the way they conduct themselves both inside and outside the office. Any scandalous behavior or any act that may erode the people's esteem for the judiciary is unbecoming of an employee and may not be countenanced. Any transgression or deviation from established norm of conduct, work related or not, amounts to a misconduct.[28]
WHEREFORE, respondent Solminio B. Delas Armas, Sheriff IV of Branch 265, RTC, Pasig City, is found GUILTY of grave misconduct, and is DISMISSED from the service immediately, with FORFEITURE of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C.J, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo, Reyes, J. Jr., Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, De Los Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
Reyes, A. Jr., and Hernando, JJ., On official leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1- 7 .
[2] Id. at 16-17.
[3] Id. at 39-42.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 469.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 470.
[8] Id.
[9] Id. at 471.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at. 49-52.
[12] Id. at 472.
[13] Id. at 454-464.
[14] Id. at 464.
[15] Id. at 468-477.
[16] Id. at 476-477.
[17] Duque v. Calpo, A.M. No. P-16-3505, January 22, 2019.
[18] Judge Tolentino-Genilo v. Pineda, 817 Phil 588, 594 (2017).
[19] Id.
[20] Villahermosa, Sr. v. Sarcia, 726 Phil. 408, 416 (2014)
[21] Judge Marquez, et al. v. Pacariem, 589 Phil. 72, 89 (2008).
[22] Rules of Court, Rule 133, Sec. 5; Pamintuan v. Comuyog, Jr., 766 Phil. 566, 574-575 (2015).
[23] Rollo, p. 474.
[24] Id. at 475.
[25] Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Atty. Miguel Morales, Clerk of Court, MTC, Manila, 592 Phil. 102, 118 (2008).
[26] REVISED RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, Rule 10, sec. 46 , par. A, 3.
[27] Supra 15 at 417.
[28] Tauro v. Arce, A.M. No. P-17-3731 , Nov. 8, 2017 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3871-P).
Complainant filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in Default[2] in Civil Case No. 72902-PSG, entitled Arlene Ambrosio v. New RBW Marketing, Inc. and Kevin Manaloto pending before Branch 265, RTC, Pasig City in which Delas Armas was the branch sheriff. The said motion was denied in the Order[3] dated February 16, 2012, copies of which were sent to the parties and their respective counsel by registered mail on March 2, 2012, while complainant received her copy on March 8, 2012.[4]
However, prior to the Order being sent to the parties, in the afternoon of February 29, 2012, Sheriff Delas Armas, through his number +63918 951 3361, contacted complainant's husband, Cesar P. Ambrosio (Cesar) in his cellular phone number +63915 250 8859 regarding complainant's case, to wit :
Respondent Sheriff Delas Armas : "Pwede ba tayo mag usap ngayon? Punta ka d2 opis"Hearing the order of denial of the motion, Cesar immediately called Sheriff Delas Armas who told him that allegedly there were two orders prepared by the trial court and that it was the order denying the motion that was signed by the presiding judge. After which, they agreed to meet the next day.[6]
Cesar Ambrosio: "Morong pa sir bka mga 5 pa mkabalik bka pde tomorrow a.m. Pnthan kta"
Respondent Sheriff Delas Armas: Importante lang, regarding case mo
Cesar: Ok pre habol nlang ako pilitin ko before 5 mkabalik
Respondent: Tawag ka Muna
Cesar: Teka sir mag start npo hearing
Respondent: Cge
Cesar: Sherif kakatapos lng hearing mga 1 hour travel time frm morong to pasig. Trapik na coding pako. 2Mro a.m. Punta ko jan.Tnx
Respondent: D2 ka punta armal bowlingan. Agahan mo baka rna mail na yung order na denied, pinakiusapan ko lang si oic na wag munang I mai1[5]
The next day, Cesar, with his friend Cyril Manaoag (Cyril), went to Branch 265, RTC of Pasig City to secure a copy of the order. They met Sheriff Delas Annas who showed them the order and its dispositive portion denying complainant's motion to declare defendants in default. Cesar told Sheriff Delas Armas that he will just accept the order although aggrieved. However, Sheriff Delas Armas retorted: "Ha, Payag ka na dyan sa order DENIED?" Thereafter, they went outside the office to talk privately, to wit:
Cesar: Pano to Sheriff?
Sheriff: Gusto kitang tulungan. Pakikiusapan ko si OIC at Judge kung papayag na i-Grant. Pero syempre meron konting gastos?
Cesar: Paanong gastos? Anong tinitingnan natin? Wala kasi akong ideya kung magkano?
Sheriff: Hindi naman gaano o ganoon kalaki ang kailanganin.
Cesar: Ano nga iyon? Magkano ang kakailanganin?
Sheriff: Pwede na siguro mga sampung libo or kaya lima lang.
Cesar: Ha! Kung limang libo, baka makagawa pa ako ng paraan. Pero kung sampu, mga ilang araw ang kakailanganin ko bago ako makabuo ng ganoong halaga.
Sheriff: Sige, subukan kong kausapin kung papayag sila, tawagan nalang kita o text kita.[7]
At 1:00 p.m. of the same day Sheriff Delas Armas texted Cesar saying that he was not able to convince the OIC and the Judge to change the order because the said order had already been made. The corresponding text messsages are as follows:
Sheriff: Di pumayag, dapat daw nung di pa nagawa order, saka naki usap, parang napasan1a pako at parang nag leak daw orderCesar and Cyril went back to Branch 265 at around 4:00 p.m. But Sheriff Delas Armas was no longer around. They requested for a copy of the order but the female staff who attended to him denied knowledge of the order. Cesar then texted Sheriff Delas Armas that he indeed went to Branch 265 and they agreed to just meet the next day.
Cesar: Saan nagleak? Tayo lng magka-usap ah. Tsaka ikaw may sabe na dalawa order isang granted at isang denied gumagawa nko paraan para makalikom ng 10k.
Cesar: Gumagawa nko paraan balik ako jan b4 5pm kuhanin ko un order.[8]
On March 2, 2012, Cesar and Cyril returned to Branch 265 and met with respondent Sheriff Delas Armas at the 6th floor of the Hall of Justice where an argument ensued between Cesar and respondent, to wit:
Cesar: Sheriff:, ano nangyari? Alam na alam mo na kami biktima dito, binibiktima nyo pa kami.
Sheriff Delas Armas: Tumutulong lang ako. Ako na napasama.
Cesar: Kung tumutulong ka, bakit mo kami hinihingan ng sampung libo. Eto si Jojo (Cyril) na testigo ko at narinig niya lahat ng pinag-usapan natin.
Sheriff Delas Armas: Wag ka masyadong maingay nag-hi-hearing si Judge baka marinig tayo.
Cesar: Eh ano kung marinig tayo. Gusto ko talaga kausapin ang Judge mo. SheriffDelas Armas: Bakit? Ano sasabihin mo?
Cesar: Eh di sasabihin ko ang totoo. Na hinihingan mo kami ng pera. At sasabihin ko na dalawa yun order na sinasabi mo. Granted at Denied.
Sheriff Delas Armas: Oo dalawa yun. Pero si Judge ang mamimili kung ano pipirmahan nya.
Cesar: Ngayon lang ako naka-encounter ng ganyan. Alam ko isa-isa lang order. Kung ganyan kayo ka-corrupt dadalhin ko na lang to sa OCAD doon na lang kayo magpaliwanag.[9]
Cyril heard the whole conversation as he was with Cesar the whole time he was conversing with Sheriff Delas Armas.[10]
Respondents Position
Respondent Sheriff Delas Armas vehemently denied the complainant's accusations against him contending that the allegations against him are purely fabricated coming from a litigant who obtained an unfavorable order from the court.
Respondent denied to have ever represented to Cesar that he could, in any way, influence the decision of the Honorable Judge. Moreover, respondent denied having asked Cesar money or otherwise in exchange for influencing the Court to change its unfavorable order to the complainant.
Respondent also stated that he does not know Cesar nor the complainant personally.[11]
In a Resolution dated February 10, 2014, the instant administrative matter was referred to the Executive Judge of RTC Pasig City for investigation, report and recommendation.[12]
Report and Recommendation
In his Report and Recommendation,[13] Investigating Judge Danilo S. Cruz (Judge Cruz) recommended that respondent Sheriff Solminio B. Delas Armas be meted the penalty of suspension for one (1) month without salary with stern warning that repetition of the same or similar act of misconduct shall be dealt with more severely, and we quote:
Sheriff Solminio B. Delas Armas is guilty of simple misconduct. The undersigned notes that respondent has been in the service for twenty four (24) years and this is his first offense. He should be meted the penalty of suspension for one (1) month without salary with STERN WARNING that repetition of the same or similar act of misconduct shall be dealt with more severely.[14]On February 28, 2017, a Memorandum[15] was passed by the Office of the Court Administrator finding respondent Delas Armas guilty of grave misconduct, we quote:
Hence, the case was transmitted to this court for review.
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable · [C]ourt that: respondent Delas Armas be found GUILTY of grave misconduct and be ordered DISMISSED from the service with FORFEITURE of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government including government-owned or controlled corporations.[16]
The Court's Ruling
We agree and adopt the recommendation of the OCA in imposing on Sheriff Delas Armas the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the service for grave misconduct.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer.[17] It is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior and to constitute an administrative offense, the misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer.[18] In order to differentiate gross misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, and not a mere error of judgment, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in the former.[19]
In a long line of cases, this Court has held that solicitation or receiving money from litigants by court personnel constitutes grave misconduct.[20] Under Section 46 (A) of Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, this is punishable by dismissal from service even for the first offense. While there are cases in which the Court has mitigated the imposable penalty for humanitarian reasons and other considerations such as length of service, acknowledgment of infractions, feelings of remorse, and family circumstances,[21] none of these is applicable to the case at hand. Hence, respondent's dismissal is proper.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds no reason to depart from the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator that the evidence on record sufficiently demonstrate respondent Sheriff Delas Armas' culpability for grave misconduct. This being an administrative proceeding, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[22] This requirement has been met in this case.
In the instant case, it is clear that in the afternoon of February 29, 2012, respondent Sheriff Delas Armas contacted Cesar through a series of text messages regarding Arlene's Motion to Declare Defendants in Default in Civil Case No. 72902-PSG then pending before Branch 265, RTC of Pasig City. The series of text messages are as follows:
Consequently, when Cesar and respondent Delas Armas met the next day, it was there that respondent intimated to Cesar that they can have the Order in Civil Case No. 72902-PSG reversed in favor of the complainant for a fee, to wit:
Respondent Sheriff Delas Armas: "Pwede ba tayo mag usap ngayon?
Punta ka d2 opis"
Cesar Ambrosio: "Morong pa sir bka mga 5 pa mkabalik bka pde tomorrow a.m. Pnthan kta"
Respondent Sheriff Delas Armas: Importante lang, regarding case mo
Cesar: Ok pre habol nlang ako pilitin ko before 5 mkabalik
Respondent: Tawag ka Muna
Cesar: Teka sir mag start npo hearing
Respondent: Cge. (Emphasis supplied).
Cyril, who accompanied Cesar at that time, confirmed that respondent Sheriff Delas Armas extorted money from Cesar in his testimony during cross examination after showing the order denying the motion of complainant, particularly:
Cesar: Pano to Sheriff?
Sheriff: Gusto kitang tulungan. Pakikiusapan kosi OIC at Judge kung papayag na i-Grant. Pero syempre meron konting gastos.
Cesar: Paanong gastos? Anong tinitingnan natin? Wala kasi akong ideya kung magkano?
Sheriff: Hindi naman gaano o ganoon kalaki ang kailanganin. Cesar: Ano nga iyon? Magkano ang kakailanganin?
Sheriff: Pwede na siguro mga sampung libo or kaya lima lang.
Cesar: Ha! Kung limang libo, baka makagawa pa ako ng paraan. Pero kung sampu, mga ilang araw ang kakailanganin ko bago ako makabuo ng ganoong halaga.
Sheriff: Sige, subukan kong kausapin kung papayag sila, tawagan nalang kita o text kita. (Emphases Supplied)
Q: Now in paragraph 5 of the same affidavit, you mentioned that you were able to read the paper shown to you by the respondent, Solminio Delas Armas, am I correct, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: What exactly did you read, Mr. Witness?
A: The word denied, Sir.
Q: So only the word denied, Mr . Witness?
A: Yes. Sir.
x x x x
Q: Now in paragraph 7 of your affidavit, you mentioned the conversation between Mr. Ambrosio and respondent, am I correct, Mr. witness?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And in the last statement made by Mr. Ambrosio, he mentioned there and I quote[:]Kung limang libo magagawan ko pang paraan. Pero kung sampu, mga ilang araw pa bago ako makabuo ng ganun halaga", am I correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you know, Mr. Witness, what the money is for?
A: In their conversation parang may hinihinging pera, Sir.
Q: Who requested for the money, Mr. Witness?
A: Sir, Sol po, Sir.[23] (Emphases supplied)
The above-mentioned conversation jived with the text messages between Cesar and respondent which proves that the latter tried to extort money from Cesar in exchange for a favorable ruling regarding complainant Arlene's motion, to wit:
On the other hand, a reading of the respondent's Comment shows that he vehemently denies all the allegtions hurled against him stating that no one in Branch 265 has the courage to even talk to the Judge regarding any of the pending cases. Aside from that, he avers that, as sheriff, his position does not authorize him to influence the court proceedings and that his only participation in the proceedings is to implement the orders of the court against its litigants.
Sheriff: Di pumayag, dapat daw nung di pa nagawa order, saka naki usap, parang napasama pako at parang nag leak daw order
Cesar: Saan nagleak? Tayo lng magka-usap ah. Tsaka ikaw may sabe na dalawa order isang granted at isang denied gumagawa nko paraan para makalikom ng 10k.
Cesar: Gumagawa nko paraan balik ako jan b4 5pm kuhanin ko un order.[24]
(Emphasis supplied)
In sum, there are three acts where the respondent can be made liable for. First, communicating to a litigant who had a pending case in court where he was assigned; Second, showing a court order, which was not yet released to the parties, to persons who were not privy thereto, in violation of Section 1, Canon II of the New Code of Judicial Conduct; and Third, making it appear that he could influence a judge to modify or change the prepared order in exchange for money, which constitutes grave misconduct.
The Court has always emphasized that all members of the judiciary should be free from any whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to their duties in the judicial branch but also to their behavior outside the court as private individuals, in order that the integrity and good name of the courts of justice be preserved.[25] Court personnel cannot take advantage of the vulnerability of desperate party-litigants for monetary gain.
Grave misconduct merits dismissal.[26] In some cases, the court exercised its discretion to assess mitigating circumstances such as length of service or the fact that a transgression might be the first infraction of respondent. However, due to the gravity of the acts of respondent, no mitigating circumstances can be appreciated.
Throughout the years this court has received many complaints from party-litigants against court employees extorting money from them. This court has already heard various reasons given by court employees for receiving money from party-litigants. However, there is no defense that could justify asking or receiving money from party litigants. The act itself makes court employees guilty of grave misconduct. They must bear the penalty of dismissal.[27]
Employees of the judiciary should be guided to be circumspect in the way they conduct themselves both inside and outside the office. Any scandalous behavior or any act that may erode the people's esteem for the judiciary is unbecoming of an employee and may not be countenanced. Any transgression or deviation from established norm of conduct, work related or not, amounts to a misconduct.[28]
WHEREFORE, respondent Solminio B. Delas Armas, Sheriff IV of Branch 265, RTC, Pasig City, is found GUILTY of grave misconduct, and is DISMISSED from the service immediately, with FORFEITURE of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C.J, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo, Reyes, J. Jr., Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, De Los Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
Reyes, A. Jr., and Hernando, JJ., On official leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1- 7 .
[2] Id. at 16-17.
[3] Id. at 39-42.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 469.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 470.
[8] Id.
[9] Id. at 471.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at. 49-52.
[12] Id. at 472.
[13] Id. at 454-464.
[14] Id. at 464.
[15] Id. at 468-477.
[16] Id. at 476-477.
[17] Duque v. Calpo, A.M. No. P-16-3505, January 22, 2019.
[18] Judge Tolentino-Genilo v. Pineda, 817 Phil 588, 594 (2017).
[19] Id.
[20] Villahermosa, Sr. v. Sarcia, 726 Phil. 408, 416 (2014)
[21] Judge Marquez, et al. v. Pacariem, 589 Phil. 72, 89 (2008).
[22] Rules of Court, Rule 133, Sec. 5; Pamintuan v. Comuyog, Jr., 766 Phil. 566, 574-575 (2015).
[23] Rollo, p. 474.
[24] Id. at 475.
[25] Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Atty. Miguel Morales, Clerk of Court, MTC, Manila, 592 Phil. 102, 118 (2008).
[26] REVISED RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, Rule 10, sec. 46 , par. A, 3.
[27] Supra 15 at 417.
[28] Tauro v. Arce, A.M. No. P-17-3731 , Nov. 8, 2017 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3871-P).