AM P 09 2648; (March, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-09-2648 (formerly A.M. No. 09-4-181-RTC) and A.M. No. P-13-3174 (formerly OCA LP.I. No. 09-3128-P)
Date: March 26, 2014
Case Parties: Office of the Court Administrator and Atty. Rex G. Rico, Complainants, vs. Atty. Leah Espera Miranda, Clerk of Court V, and Ms. Jocelyn H. Divinagracia, Clerk III, both of the RTC, Br. 38, Iloilo City, Respondents.
FACTS
The consolidated administrative cases originated from a letter-complaint dated October 5, 2004, and a subsequent complaint dated March 30, 2009, filed by Atty. Rex G. Rico against respondents Atty. Leah Espera Miranda (Clerk of Court V) and Jocelyn H. Divinagracia (Clerk III) of the RTC, Branch 38, Iloilo City. The complaint alleged tampering of court records in Special Civil Action No. 02-27326.
The controversy stemmed from a Notice of Appeal filed on June 11, 2003, by Atty. Roberto F. Castillon (counsel for the private respondents) from an RTC decision. Atty. Rico moved to expunge the Notice of Appeal, arguing it lacked the written explanation for service by mail as required by Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In an order dated October 22, 2003, Judge Roger B. Patricio granted the motion and declared the decision final and executory.
Subsequently, in a motion for reconsideration filed by a new counsel, Atty. Felix O. Lodero, Jr., a copy of the Notice of Appeal was presented containing a typewritten explanation at the lower right corner. Atty. Rico opposed, alleging this document was falsified, as the original Notice of Appeal in the court records lacked such explanation and the added text appeared to be a typewriter imprint on a computer-printed pleading.
Investigation by Executive Judge Jose D. Azarraga confirmed tampering. It was established that on June 17, 2003, when Atty. Castillon’s secretary, Arlene Baesa, filed the Notice of Appeal, respondent Divinagracia pointed out the missing explanation. Divinagracia then allowed and assisted Baesa by providing a court typewriter to intercalate the explanation onto the original document before it was officially received and attached to the case records. Respondent Miranda, the Clerk of Court, was aware of this act, admitted seeing Divinagracia handle the records, and confirmed that the copy sent to Atty. Rico did not contain the explanation.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Atty. Leah Espera Miranda and Jocelyn H. Divinagracia are administratively liable for their involvement in the tampering of the court records, specifically the intercalation of a written explanation on the filed Notice of Appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court found respondents GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT.
The Court upheld the findings of Executive Judge Azarraga, which were based on substantial evidence including admissions and transcripts. The evidence clearly showed that the tampering—the typing of the explanation onto the Notice of Appeal—occurred after the pleading was presented for filing but before it was officially received and made part of the record. Divinagracia actively participated by calling attention to the deficiency, providing the means (a typewriter), and allowing the alteration. Miranda, as Clerk of Court and Divinagracia’s immediate supervisor, was complicit as she was aware of the act and failed to prevent or report it.
The Court rejected the OCA’s earlier recommendation of a mere admonition, emphasizing that court personnel have a duty to protect the integrity of court records. Their actions constituted a deliberate disregard of established rules and procedures, undermining the administration of justice. The act of falsifying a court document is a serious offense that amounts to Grave Misconduct.
DISPOSITIVE:
Respondents Atty. Leah Espera Miranda and Jocelyn H. Divinagracia were each FINED the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00), with a WARNING that repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.
Furthermore, the Court DIRECTED the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to investigate the involvement of Atty. Roberto F. Castillon and Atty. Felix O. Lodero, Jr. in the tampering to determine if their actions merit disciplinary action. The Office of the Bar Confidant was ordered to docket the matter as an administrative complaint against them.