G.R. No. A.M. No. CA-01-10-P November 14, 2001
Alda C. Floria, Executive Assistant IV, Archives Section, Court of Appeals, complainant, vs. Curie F. Sunga, Supervising Judicial Staff Officer and Isidro A. Aperocho, Assistant Information Officer Information & Statistical Data Division, Court of Appeals, respondents.

(Consolidated with the complaint filed by Sunga and Aperocho against Floria)

FACTS

Two consolidated administrative complaints arose from a workplace rivalry over a promotional vacancy for Chief of the Information and Statistical Data Division at the Court of Appeals. Respondents Curie Sunga and Isidro Aperocho, along with other co-employees, filed a Manifesto against Alda Floria, an applicant from outside their division. They accused her of immorality for a past illicit relationship with a married co-employee, falsification of her children’s birth certificates, and misrepresentation regarding her master’s degree completion. Floria admitted to the past relationship but claimed it ended decades prior, denied preparing the birth certificates, and subsequently presented proof of her graduation.
In a counter-complaint, Floria accused Sunga and Aperocho of conduct unbecoming court employees, alleging they orchestrated the Manifesto out of jealousy and malice to discredit her and eliminate her candidacy for the promotion. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended dismissing the complaint against Floria for lack of merit, but recommended fining Sunga and Aperocho for causing her prejudice. The Court adopted this recommendation in a Minute Resolution.

ISSUE

The primary issue for reconsideration is whether the Court’s initial resolution, which dismissed the charges against Floria and imposed fines on Sunga and Aperocho, should be modified.

RULING

The Court denied the motions for reconsideration and affirmed its prior resolution with modifications. It held that the charges of immorality and falsification against Floria were not substantiated. The alleged affair had long ceased, and there was no evidence Floria herself falsified her children’s birth certificates. On the charge of misrepresentation, the Court found she eventually submitted sufficient proof of her master’s degree graduation, rendering the accusation moot.
Regarding Sunga and Aperocho, the Court found their actions constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Their Manifesto, filed with the Ombudsman and OCA, was motivated not by pure civic duty but by a desire to undermine a rival candidate for promotion. This misuse of the administrative complaint process to gain a career advantage warranted administrative sanction. However, the Court reduced the fine imposed on each from P5,000.00 to P2,000.00, considering their length of service and that their actions, while improper, did not involve corruption or a direct falsehood. The warning against future infractions was maintained. The Court emphasized that while employees may report wrongdoing, doing so with malicious intent to harm a colleague’s career is itself a punishable offense.