536 Phil. 373
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
The letter-complaint was then referred to Executive Judge Albano-Madrid for investigation, report and recommendation.
(1) While supposedly serving her three (3)-months suspension, Stenographer of Branch 21 and Officer-in-Charge-OCC Clerk of Court Angelina C. Rillorta x x x conducted the raffle of cases on 11 November 2003 while Executive Judge Fe Albano Madrid was in Manila. After affixing her signature in the results of the raffle x x x prepared by Clerk Susan Liggayu x x x, she left for Manila to fetch Executive Judge Madrid. (2) Ms. Susan Liggayu furnished Branches 35 and 36 with the raffle results together with the folder of cases which were entered in their docket books. Branch 21 was not furnished a copy of the same due to the absence of the Officer-in-Charge Arcelio De Castillo x x x. (3) On the afternoon of the same date, personnel of Atty. Ruben Lopez, counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Case 3183 entitled "Heirs of Bienvenido Pua v. Metrobank," inquired where the said case was raffled to. When informed that the said case was raffled to Branch 21, the said personnel lamented, "Paano nangyari yun eh tapos na ang usapan namin na mapunta sa Br. 36[?]" (4) The following day, 12 November 2003, OIC De Castillo reported for work and was informed of the phone call. De Castillo requested from Stenographer Virginia A. Manuel x x x the docket numbers of cases drawn to Branch 21. The latter gave him the numbers written in a note pad and when compared to the stubs, were different. (5) When OIC De Castillo asked Manuel to show him the original stenographic notes of the raffle, the latter admitted that OIC Rillorta ordered her to reflect that Civil Case 3183 was drawn to Branch 36 instead of Branch 21. (6) When Liggayu served a copy of the raffle result, De Castillo rejected the same knowing that it was not the correct raffle result. (7) Ms. Liggayu did not answer when asked by De Castillo to explain the discrepancy and instead, she recalled the case folders which were distributed (to the different branches) together with the copies of the raffle results. (8) Upon arrival from Manila and upon learning of what happened, OIC Rillorta berated Manuel in the presence of other employees of Branch 21 and threatened to cause her dismissal. Rillorta then caused the logbook to be photocopied and likewise threatened Branch 21 employees that she will file a report. (9) That the aforesaid acts of Rillorta constitute gross and deliberate defiance of the Court's 3-month suspension order as she did not cease and desist from performing her duties. (10) That Rillorta's act of conducting the raffle in the absence of the Executive Judge and with her cohorts['] abuse of authority and managed to tamper the results thereby defeating the purpose of the raffle and that the said acts tend to show that Rillorta made an agreement with a lawyer to deliberately select the court where a case will be assigned to obtain a favorable decision.[1]
During that time, Ms. Rillorta was under suspension and she was just winding up the turning over of her duties. That was the reason why Ms. Manuel was the one who recorded the proceedings of the raffle. Some people must have seized this opportunity. By her admission, she was instructed to tamper with the results of the raffle which she was supposed to prepare. She was not able to do so. It was Ms. Rillorta who after all prepared the true Minutes of the proceedings. I believe that the person who instructed Ms. Manuel to assign Civil Cases 3183 and 3184 to Branch 36 was someone of authority such that Ms. Manuel could not refuse. Neither can she divulged (sic) who that person really is. Ms. Liggayu who is a clerk of the office of the Clerk of Court has no moral or official ascendancy over Ms. Manuel.Thereafter, pursuant to the recommendation of the OCA, the Court, in a Resolution dated August 8, 2005, resolved to
I suppose there are disgruntled employees who cannot do their nefarious activities in the office because of the discipline being imposed by the Supreme Court. They resent this and they resort to the sending of anonymous letters.
(a) NOTE the Report dated 15 April 2005 of Executive Judge Fe Albano Madrid; (b) REDOCKET and TREAT this case as an administrative matter against: (1) Officer-in-Charge Angelina C. Rillorta, Office of the Clerk of Court, for performing her duties/reporting for work while under suspension by the Court, (2) Susan Liggayu, Clerk III, same office, and (3) Virginia A. Manuel, Stenographer III, RTC, Branch 21, Santiago City, for falsification and dishonesty; and (c) DESIGNATE Justice Pedro Ramirez, a consultant of the Office of the Court Administrator, to conduct a formal investigation on the matter and to submit his report and recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of the record.In his Report dated July 10, 2006, Justice Romulo S. Quimbo* opined that Executive Judge Madrid's observation that "there are disgruntled employees who cannot do their nefarious activities in the office because of the discipline being imposed by the Supreme Court" is not far from the truth. He pointed out that although respondent Manuel declared having received a text message from respondent Liggayu, Executive Judge Madrid correctly pointed out that the latter has neither moral nor official ascendancy over Manuel. While there may have really been an attempt to "corrupt" the raffle, there is no direct evidence that could justify a finding of guilt against Manuel. In the absence of any other evidence, the alleged statement of the personnel of Atty. Lopez regarding an alleged "agreement" with the court personnel to have Civil Case Nos. 3183 and 3184 raffled to Branch 36 is not sufficient on which to anchor an adverse finding against respondents Liggayu or Manuel.
Per records, Ms. Angelina C. Rillorta was suspended for 3 months pursuant to the Court's resolution dated 07 October 2003 in A.M. No. P-03-1745 (Antonio T. Quebral v. Angelina C. Rillorta, OIC, etc.). Said suspension took effect upon receipt of Ms. Rillorta of the decision on 16 October 2003 as shown in the return of registry receipt. The suspension order was received on 16 October 2003, while the raffle was held [on] 11 November 2003, or almost a month from the date of suspension. Hence, the reason proferred by Rillorta that she was merely winding up and turning over her duties is unacceptable as the same may be done in a day or two.Indeed, a resolution or directive of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request. It should be complied with promptly and completely, and failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character but also disrespect for the Court's lawful order and directive.[8] Thus, reporting for work while under suspension for another administrative offense displays gross misconduct, for which she should likewise be held liable. The Court finds that a fine of P10,000.00 should be meted on respondent.
Further, since she was under suspension, her presence during the 11 November 2003 raffle may be a basis to consider her in contempt of court for deliberately defying a lawful order of the Court.[7]