JUDGE AGLORO v. COURT INTERPRETER

Judge Agloro v. Court Interpreter

A.M. No. P-16-3550 (Formerly A.M. IPI No. 14-4252-P)

January 31, 2017

Facts:

Judge Agloro submitted a formal complaint to Executive Judge Francisco (EJ Francisco) which pertains to the LRC case raffled off to Branch 77 but appeared in Branch 83; that the petition was heard and granted by Branch 83 in its Order; that he came to know that the registration of the entry of judgment for the Order was refused by the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) because the LRC case was raffled off to Branch 77 and not to Branch 83; and that he was in a predicament because there was a pending motion for execution, yet the decision was not yet final and executory.

On the other hand, the respondents submitted their respective comments on the alleged anomaly as reported by EJ Francisco:

Burgos, OIC/interpreter of Branch 83, averred that she was informed by Fajardo, then clerk-in-charge for criminal cases of Branch 83, that she came across a raffle sheet which indicated that the LRC case was actually raffled to Branch 77 and not to their branch. Fajardo orally confirmed the statement of Burgos, and that she confronted respondent Santiago, clerk-in-charge for civil and land registration cases of Branch 83, regarding her discovery. Santiago, Clerk III, OCC, but detailed at Branch 83, claimed that she came across the records of the LRC case on top of her table; and that, per her usual practice, she stamped received the said record, docketed it in their docket book, and transmitted it to the person in charge of the preparation of the initial hearing.

For her part, Branch 83 Stenographer Garcia admitted that she prepared the order setting the LRC case for initial hearing and the final order granting the petition. She also admitted signing the cancelled entry of judgment.

Issue:

WON the above-stated respondents committed grave misconduct;

Held:

Yes, for respondents Garcia and Santiago; In the instant case, evidence shows that Garcia and Santiago connived to guarantee that the LRC petition would be acted on favorably.

First, with respect to Garcia, testimonial and documentary evidence reveals her unwarranted interest in the LRC case. Garcia performed numerous acts which led to no other conclusion than that she was instrumental and complicit in making sure that the petition would be granted. Garcia first approached the OCC and tried to persuade them to have the LRC case assigned to Branch 83. Her request was denied as there was a process of raffling off the cases. When the LRC case mysteriously appeared in Branch 83, it was Garcia who practically prepared all the orders relating to the said case. More importantly, it was Garcia who prepared the draft of the Order which granted the petition. Moreover, Garcia issued an entry of judgment for the same. Garcia claimed that she only issued the subject entry of judgment to prevent the disruption of service because Burgos was absent on that day. It must be noted that it was the function of Burgos, as OIC, to prepare and sign the entry of judgment. Regrettably for Garcia, Burgos was able to successfully rebut her claim by attaching her DTR to prove that she was present on the said date. Likewise, aside from failing to inform Burgos of the said entry of judgment, Garcia notified neither the latter nor Judge Agloro of the OCC's refusal to receive the entry of judgment.

Finally, as to Santiago, the Court disagrees with the OCA that her acts were done in accordance with her usual daily routine. Contrary to the OCA findings, Santiago's acts, relating to the present anomaly, could not be considered as constituting simple neglect of duty because they were not committed due to carelessness and indifference, but as a result of a willful violation of the established rules. In fact, her participation was an essential part of the scheme, without which, no semblance of legitimacy could have attached to the proceedings before Branch 83 regarding the LRC case. / bvs