Pilar S. Tañoco v. Judge Inocencio B. Sagun, Jr.

Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

PILAR S. TAÑOCO,                           Complainant,                - versus - JUDGE INOCENCIO B. SAGUN, JR., Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 3, Cabanatuan City                           Respondent.

A.M. No. MTJ-12-1812 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-2250-MTJ] Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: June 20, 2012

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

RESOLUTION

SERENO, J.:

On 4 March 2010, complainant filed a verified Complaint against respondent judge for undue delay in rendering judgment. Complainant alleged that on 6 May 2009, a case for ejectment was filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) and raffled to respondent’s sala. On 13 October 2009, pretrial was concluded, and the parties were directed to file their position papers. On 23 November 2009, the plaintiff in the ejectment case filed her position paper. As of the date of the filing of the Complaint, no position paper had been filed by the defendant therein. Neither had any decision been rendered by respondent on the case, in violation of the Rule on Summary Procedure, which mandates that ejectment cases should be decided within thirty (30) days from the submission of the position papers of the parties or upon the lapse of the period to do so.

For his part, respondent submitted his Comment stating, among others, that (1) the pretrial Order directing the parties to file their position papers was only issued on 26 January 2010; (2) delay did not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff in the ejectment case, as the defendant had already vacated the subject property; (3) there was no intention to delay on the part of respondent judge; and (4) a Decision had already been rendered on           7 April 2010.

By way of reply, complainant averred that the alleged pretrial Order dated 26 January 2010 was mailed only on 15 March 2010 and thus appeared to have been antedated. 

On 14 July 2011, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued a recommendation that respondent be found guilty of Undue Delay in Rendering Judgment/Decision, and that he be fined ₱10,000 and warned that a repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt with more severely. 

We find the OCA recommendation to be appropriate, with a modification.

Delay in case disposition is a major culprit in the erosion of public faith and confidence in the judiciary and the lowering of its standards. Failure to decide cases within the reglementary period, without strong and justifiable reasons, constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanction on the defaulting judge.[1]

In this case, the decision was purportedly issued on 7 April 2011, or more than four months since the last submission of the parties’ position paper.

Even if one were to consider respondent judge’s argument, there would still be undue delay in the resolution of the ejectment case.

The pretrial Order was purportedly issued on 26 January 2010, or more than three months since the pretrial. Section 8 of the Rules on Summary Procedure provides that within five days after the termination of the preliminary conference, the court shall issue an order stating the matters taken up therein.

Further, paragraph 8, Title I(A) of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, entitled “Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures,” mandates that a judge must issue a pretrial order within 10 days after the termination of the pretrial. Since the ejectment case fell under the Rules on Summary Procedure, respondent judge should have handled it with promptness and haste. The reason for the adoption of those Rules is precisely to prevent undue delays in the disposition of cases, an offense for which respondent judge may be held administratively liable.

Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a less serious charge, which under Section     1(b) of the same Rule is punishable with suspension from office, without salary and other benefits, for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or a fine of more than ₱10,000, but not exceeding ₱20,000. Considering that the instant administrative charge is only the third against respondent judge (the first has been dismissed, while the second is still pending), and considering his relatively long tenure in the judiciary starting in 1997, he may be reasonably meted out a penalty of ₱5,000 for being administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Judge Inocencio B. Sagun, Jr., Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 3, Cabanatuan City, is declared liable for delay in the disposition of case. Accordingly, he is FINED ₱5,000.

Respondent is likewise WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction from the Court.

SO ORDERED.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

 

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

Chairperson

    ARTURO D. BRION                                   JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ                    

         Associate Justice                                                  Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES

Associate Justice

---

[1] Celino v. Judge Abrogar, 315 Phil. 305 (1995).

Source: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/MTJ-12-1812.htm

Ricardo Dela Cruz, et al., v. Ma. Consuelo Joie A. Fajardo

Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

RICARDO O. DELA CRUZ, EDGARDO CRISOSTOMO, ZOILO COPO, VILMA COPO, RONALDO L. SANTOS, ROBERTO G. OMALIN, CRISANTA H. MADRIAGA, RUTH  SANTOS ROWENA CUBIN, RUSTICO AMAYA, EUFEMIA O. ENDRINAL, ROSITA L. IROIZ (sic), CORAZON L. CORAZON L. MALIMUTIN, RICARDO V. BALDONAZI, ROMMEL REAL, SUSANA B. CASIDSID,  RAMON G. SILVANO, GREGORIA T. CATALAN, MARILITA A. MATABUENA, RUSANA M. MACHADO, LEONILA RISVEROS, JOSE TEMPLAO, CESAR RAMOS, LOIDA R. REYES, BONIFACIO C. BISMAR, MARISSA L. GRINDULO, WILFREDO ABANILLA, MERLY MARIE BERGAMOS, ZENAIDA B. PALAGANAS, AURORA S. CUEVAS, REYNALDO ICONIA, ANECITO V. LANIC (sic), BASILIA P. DELA CRUZ, DANILO M. BAOT, LORENZA C. TUNGOL, CRESENCIA G. RAVAL (sic), ERLINDA C. ROXAS, RAMIR C. FILIPINA, ADRIANA BADILLA, LENIE TACIANA P. BALNEG, DANILO MAGSINO, ERNIE MURILLO, ADLAI U. BULLALAYAO, TESSIE Z. BERROGA, MILA T. PAULIN, NESTOR CO, MARIA N. OMALIN, GENOVEVA G. SERENIO, LUZVIMINDA G. MAQUIMOT, LUZVIMINDA A. SAMANIEGO, ISABELITA A. MARIÑAS, JAIME O. HERNANDEZ, SANTIAGO C. CAVERO, ISIDORA R. MAGBOJOS, SALVADOR A. MACEDA, MARILOU M. ESTRADA, ARTURO G. BENITEZ, JR., BENEDICTA B. CASTASUS, MYRNA B. PARTOZ, ANECITA M. PEREZ, JOSELITO C. MUSA, LEONILA T. MUSA, LERMA J. OLAVE, ROSARIO G. DAGSAN, MARILYN CASTILLO, ANABELLE LARASI, JOSELITO DOLOSA, ELISA J. DOOSA, BARTOLOME NIÑEZ, FELIX T. BALDAD, JR., ROMAN P. DE JESUS, JR., LERMA C. RAYMUNDO, EDUARDO TENEBRO, VENANCIO CUDA(sic), MA. CRISPINA C. MUNCADA, DOMINADOR O. MARCO, ELIZA LAGASCA, MARLON D. CATAQUIL, DOMNINA B. VIDEÑA, BENEDICTA JUBIDA, ANGELA ASAAYA, EDWIN TAMAYO, TORIBIO V. GUERRERO, CALIDA C. GONZALES, ELSIE FUFUGAL, FABIANA B. FAJARDO, ANGELINA PLATA, MYRNA ETORNE, JOSEPHINE C. SAN JOSE, VALENTIN P. BRONCATE, K. NOCHE, CONCESO P. CAVERO, FLOR C. MEQUIZ, LEONARDO MEQUIZ,                                                                Complainants,                - versus - MA. CONSUELO JOIE A. FAJARDO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 93, San Pedro, Laguna,                           Respondent.

A.M. No. P-12-3064(Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3180-P) Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson,   BRION, BERSAMIN,* SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: June 18, 2012

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

RESOLUTION

SERENO, J.:

          Complainants Ricardo O. dela Cruz, et al. were employees of Viva Footwear Corporation (Viva), located at Barrio San Vicente, San Pedro, Laguna.[1]Respondent Ma. Consuelo Joie A. Fajardo (respondent Fajardo) is Sheriff  IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 93 of San Pedro, Laguna.

The Facts of the Case

The present case had its genesis when the Philippine National Bank (PNB) foreclosed on the real estate mortgage of Viva. Thereafter, RTC Branch 93 of San Pedro, Laguna in LRC No. SPL-0462 issued in favor of PNB a Writ of Possession,[2] which was implemented by respondent Fajardo.

Complainants alleged that respondent Fajardo forcefully evicted all the officers and employees of Viva after a mere three-day notice.[3] They accused her of levying on Viva’s properties, which were exempt from execution, and of wrongfully applying the proceeds of the sale to PNB. They were thus deprived of their claims in a labor dispute with Viva over their unpaid wages and other benefits.

On 17 June 2009, complainants filed an Affidavit with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), charging respondent with grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.[4]

          On 29 June 2009, the OCA required respondent Fajardo to file her comment on the Complaint within 10 days from notice,[5] but she did not comply despite her receipt of the Notice. On 14 September 2009, the Court Administrator issued to respondent a 1^st Tracer reiterating the Court’s directive; otherwise, the matter would be resolved without her comment.[6] She still failed to comply.

          On 17 December 2009, the OCA[7] formally recommended to the Court (through its First Division) the issuance of a show cause order against respondent, requiring her to explain why she should not be administratively dealt with for her refusal to submit a Comment despite being sent two directives by the OCA.[8] Further, the latter required her to submit her Comment within five days from receipt of the Order. On 27 January 2010, the First Division of this Court issued a Resolution adopting the recommendations of the OCA.[9]

          On 05 March 2010, respondent submitted to this Court her Comment dated 02 March 2010 and apologized for her delayed response. She also prayed that the charges against her be dismissed for lack of merit. [10] On 05 April 2010, this Court noted her letter-explanation.[11]

The Findings of the OCA

          On 13 September 2010, the OCA issued its evaluation, report and recommendation on the Complaint against respondent.[12] It found that she had not committed grave abuse of  authority in implementing the Writ of Execution against Viva. The OCA recognized that once the sheriff was given the writ, it was purely ministerial on the latter’s part to implement it. Moreover, the Court Administrator found that issues proffered by complainants pertained to preference of credits under the Civil Code – issues that were judicial in nature and could not be resolved by the sheriff.

The OCA noted, however, the glaring noncompliance of respondent with the Court’s twin directives for her to submit a comment on the charges against her. The OCA deemed her noncompliance as gross insubordination. When she finally responded to the Order of the Court, she apologized in her letter, but did not explain why she failed to comply with its directives. For this reason, the OCA recommended that a fine of ₱10,000 be meted out to her, and that the case against her be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter.[13]

          On 01 December 2010, the Third Division of this Court required the parties to manifest, within 30 days from receipt of  the Notice, whether they were willing to submit the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings and records already filed.[14] On 01 March 2011, complainants filed their Ex-Parte Manifestation dated 22 February 2011 expressing their willingness to submit the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings already submitted to this Court.[15]

On 28 March 2011, the Third Division of this Court issued a Resolution noting complainants’ Manifestation and resolved to await that of respondent.[16]However, even after a considerable lapse of time, she still failed to file it. Thus, on 13 February 2012, the Court resolved to dispense with her manifestation and considered the matter submitted for decision.[17]

Our Ruling

          After a thorough review of the records, this Court ADOPTS the recommendations of the OCA to DISMISS the administrative case against respondent Fajardo for lack of merit, but finds her GUILTY of gross insubordination.

          We affirm the OCA’s dismissal of the administrative Complaint against respondent, because it involves matters that are judicial in nature. The issue as to the correct application of the proceeds from the auction sale of the properties of Viva involves the application of the gCivil Code provisions on the preference of credits. The sheriff, and even the OCA, has no jurisdiction to resolve such matters, which are actually ripe for a case before the regular courts. Complainants should have filed a third-party suit in the case between Viva and PNB.

            Well-settled is the rule that a sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial – to execute the order of the court strictly or to the letter.  Court sheriffs have no discretion over whether or not to execute the judgment. When a writ is placed in their hands, it is their duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to implement it in accordance with its mandate. For it is only by doing so that they can ensure that the order is executed without undue delay.[18]  Thus, as the Court has found no grave abuse of authority in the implementation of the Writ of Execution, the Complaint against herein respondent is dismissed.

          However, with regard to respondent having committed gross insubordination as an employee of the judiciary, we find her guilty.

The OCA correctly pointed out that in her letter-explanation, respondent failed to explain why, despite her receipt of the Notices, she did not comply with the directives of this Court to submit her comment. The records show that the OCA had sent notices to her at RTC–Branch 93 of San Pedro, Laguna, where she is the branch sheriff. While she apologized to this Court for her failure to submit her comment, she did not explain the reasons for her non-submission thereof and only averred that it was the first time she learned of the Complaint against her. The OCA did not find her explanation satisfactory, because she did submit her Comment, but only after a Show-Cause Order had been issued to her– and almost a year after the first directive requiring her to file the Comment.

          Respondent’s “prolonged and repeated refusal to comply”[19] with the directives of  this Court constituted willful disrespect of  its lawful orders, as well as those of the OCA. Respondent committed the infraction twice, yet failed to fully explain the circumstances that led to the repeated omissions. Hence, we have no reason to overturn or mitigate the penalty recommended by the OCA.

          While complainants have dutifully complied with every directive of the Court in this case, respondent, on the other hand, has exhibited a penchant for ignoring its directives.

Gross insubordination is the indifference of a respondent to an administrative complaint and to resolutions requiring a comment thereon.[20] The offense is deemed punishable, because every employee in the judiciary should not only be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty; more than anyone else, they are bound to manifest utmost respect and obedience to their superiors’ orders and instructions.[21]

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM in all respects the report of the OCA finding respondent Fajardo guilty of gross insubordination and ADOPT its recommendations as follows:

          1) To DISMISS the administrative case filed against respondent for lack of merit and for being judicial in nature;

 2) To find respondent Fajardo GUILTY of  gross insubordination for her failure to immediately comply with the Office of the Court Administrator’s directives and to FINE her in the amount of ten thousand pesos (₱10,000), with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty;

          3) To have the instant case RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter.

SO ORDERED.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

 

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

Chairperson

                                                                                     

    ARTURO D. BRION                                        ­­­­­­­LUCAS P. BERSAMIN                       

         Associate Justice                                                  Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES

   Associate Justice

---

* Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez, who took no part due to prior action as Court Administrator per Raffle dated 18 July 2011.

[1] Rollo, p. 1.

[2] Id. at  6.

[3] Id. at  8.

[4] Id. at  5.

[5] Id. at  18.

[6] Id. at  19.

[7] The 17 December 2009 Recommendation was signed by then Court Administrator (now Supreme Court Justice) Jose P. Perez and then Deputy Court Administrator Nimfa C. Vilches.

[8] Rollo, pp. 20-21.

[9] Id. at  22.

[10] Id. at  24.

[11] Id. at  33.

[12] The 13 September 2010 Recommendation was signed by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and Deputy Court Administrator Nimfa Cuesta-Vilches.

[13] Rollo, pp. 38-41.

[14] Id. at  47.

[15] Id. at  48.

[16] Id. at  51.

[17] Id. at  54.

[18] Cebu International Finance Corporation v. Cabigon, A.M. No. P-06-2107, 14 February 2007, 515 SCRA 616.

[19] Rollo, p. 40.

[20] Gonzales v. Rimando, A.M. No. P-07-2385, 26 October 2009, 604 SCRA 403. 

[21] Mallare v. Ferry, 414 Phil. 286 (2001).

Source: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/P-12-3064.htm

Judge Ethelwolda A. Jaravata v. Precioso T. Orencia

Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

JUDGE ETHELWOLDA A. JARAVATA,                           Petitioner,                - versus - PRECIOSO T. ORENCIA, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Agoo, La Union,                           Respondent.

A. M. No. P-12-3035 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11- 3619-P] Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: June 13, 2012

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

RESOLUTION

SERENO, J.:

On 7 April 2011, Ethelwolda A. Jaravata filed a complaint letter with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), claiming that on 18 February 2011, respondent Precioso T. Orencia entered her chambers while intoxicated and uttered disrespectful statements against her.

Complainant is the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), First Judicial Region in Aringay, La Union, while respondent is the Clerk of Court of MTC Agoo. On 19 June 2003, four criminal cases were assigned to complainant by virtue of a Designation Order issued by Executive Judge Clifton U. Ganay. While the said cases originated in Agoo, the Presiding Judge of Agoo had recused himself from hearing them. On two other occasions, Judge Ganay again issued Designation Orders reassigning four more cases to Judge Jaravata.

Judge Jaravata later discovered that in one of these cases, respondent Orencia took two days upon his receipt of a pending Motion before forwarding the case records to complainant. During the court session of 10 December 2010, Orencia, the stenographer, and the process server were all absent. A Subpoena for one of the criminal cases was not served upon the concerned litigant, despite Orencia’s receipt thereof on 7 December 2010. Thus, in her Order dated 10 December 2010, Judge Jaravata informed the Executive Judge of the regional trial court regarding the purported indifference of Orencia towards the latter’s court duties.

At around 3:00 in the afternoon of 18 February 2011, Judge Jaravata was preparing to leave the court after the day’s session had ended. In the corridor, she saw respondent, who handed her a diary as a gift and informed her that he had come from a social affair nearby. Complainant thanked him then said, “I thought you went to GSIS. You are heavily drunk, Mang Che. Be careful, you might not retire if somebody will file a case against you. You are drunk and you are here.”

Respondent followed complainant and, within earshot of litigants and court personnel, yelled, “You are the one interested in removing me. I’m not afraid to be removed, if I’ll be removed, I have means to live, all my children are finished (with their schooling). I tell you, I will surely retire, if you know somebody in the Supreme Court, I too have connections... If I will be removed, I assure you that all of us will be removed.”

Complainant judge then asked, “Mang Che, what’s your problem?” Respondent continued with his tirade, calling the judge by her first name. When complainant was about to light a cigarette to appease and calm herself, respondent shouted, “Even you, you are smoking.” Complainant called Judge Clifton Ganay, who promptly arrived at her chambers. Even in Judge Ganay’s presence, respondent allegedly continued hurling invectives towards complainant.

Judge Jaravata thus filed the present Complaint, charging respondent Orencia with disrespect and discourtesy tantamount to grave misconduct. She also bewails the failure of the in-house security guards to impose safety measures and protect the occupants of the Hall of Justice from the threat of harm. She rebukes Security Guard Roberto Lacsamana in his preparation of the Incident Report, which allegedly stated that it was her smoking that triggered the behavior of respondent.

Respondent Orencia submitted his Comment with Counter-Complaint dated 13 April 2011. He admits to having attended a social affair on the day of the incident, but denies being “heavily drunk,” as he had consumed only two bottles of beer. He claimed that he greeted complainant politely and even gave her a diary. It was only when he saw her smoking inside the chamber and reminded her about her policy on cleanliness that she allegedly uttered, “Judge ako. Pwede kita ipatanggal. Hindi ka maka-retire.” Respondent was unable to rein in his temper and answered, “Ikaw ang magpapatanggal sa akin, hindi ako takot na matanggal, kahit matanggal ako, may pambuhay ako, tapos na lahat ng mga anak ko.”

Respondent retired from service on 1 July 2011. On 12 December 2011, the OCA submitted its report, recommending that respondent be reprimanded for his behavior and fined in the amount of ₱3,000 (three thousand pesos).

After a careful review of the records, we ADOPT the findings and recommendations of the OCA.

Section 2, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, requires that “[c]ourt personnel shall carry out their responsibilities as public servants in as courteous a manner as possible.”

The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work there. Court personnel must at all times act with strict propriety and proper decorum so as to earn and rebuild the public’s trust in the judiciary as an institution. We agree with the OCA that this Court “would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.”[1]

In this case, the disrespectful behavior of respondent is highlighted, as it was directed toward complainant judge and witnessed by litigants and other court personnel in the vicinity. Respondent ranted and berated her during office hours, right after the court session had ended. His behavior exhibited not only a lack of professionalism, but also profound disrespect towards the court itself.

Under Rule XIV, Section 23 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, discourtesy in the course of official duties is classified as a light offense. A first-time violation of this rule warrants the penalty of reprimand. We concur with the OCA, considering a) respondent’s apology and admission of his mistakes; b) his retirement from service on 1 July 2011 after long years of employment in the Judiciary; and c) this case being the first complaint against him. Respondent should be held liable for discourtesy and be meted out the penalty of reprimand.

          The other lapses of respondent in the performance of his duties as Clerk of Court cannot go unnoticed. Instead of strictly observing the required number of working hours in the civil service, he left his post in the middle of the day to attend a social event. Worse, he chose to return to the office and enter the judge’s chambers while under the influence of alcohol. This behavior constitutes a direct violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, particularly Section 1, Canon IV on the Performance of Duties, which states: “Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence.  They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.”

Respondent’s countercharges are better deliberated upon in a separate case.  Specifically, these are:  1) that the Clerk of Court of Aringay, Alberto N. Rivera, admitted that he always accompanied complainant even to other MTCs where she was designated and, in doing so, he did not exclusively devote his working time to MTC Aringay; 2) that Judge Jaravata, in smoking inside her chambers, violated Office Order No. 06-2009 – “Reiterating the Ban on Smoking as Provided for in Administrative Circular No. 09-99;” and 3) that complainant used foul language unbecoming a judge. Respondent may pursue and substantiate these charges in a separate case, if he so chooses.

Thus, we AFFIRM in all respects the findings of the OCA and PARTLY ADOPT its recommendation as follows:

1.)               Respondent Precioso T. Orencia, former Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court of Agoo, La Union, is found liable for discourtesy in the course of official duties and should have been meted out the penalty of REPRIMAND which, however, can no longer be imposed upon him, in view of his retirement; and

2.)               Respondent Precioso T. Orencia is likewise found liable for violation of A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, or the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, and FINED in the amount of three thousand pesos (₱3,000), to be deducted from his terminal leave pay.

SO ORDERED.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Senior Associate Justice

Chairperson

    ARTURO D. BRION                                      JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ                

         Associate Justice                                                   Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES

Associate Justice

---

[1] OCA Report, p. 8, citing Dy v. Pascua and Anita G. Oliveros, A.M. No. P-04-1798 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1517-P).

Source: