A.M. No. P-05-2056. November 18, 2005. LUZ C. ADAJAR, Complainant, vs. TERESITA O. DEVELOS, Clerk III, CELSA G. ELLORIN, Court Stenographer III, and CYRUS A. ELLORIN, Court Interpreter, RTC, Br. 8, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Respondents.
FACTS

Complainant Luz C. Adajar, a municipal councilor, alleged that in October 2000, she delivered jewelry worth ₱70,000.00 on consignment to respondent Teresita Develos, a Clerk III at the RTC. Develos made partial payments totaling ₱50,000.00 but refused to pay the ₱20,000.00 balance. On February 6, 2002, Adajar went to the court’s staff room to collect. An argument ensued where Develos insisted Adajar collect directly from other court employees who had allegedly taken the jewelry. During this confrontation, respondent Cyrus Ellorin, a Court Interpreter, allegedly shouted at and violently pushed Adajar out of the room. Respondent Celsa Ellorin, a Court Stenographer and Cyrus’s wife, allegedly recorded the altercation and later hurled insults at Adajar in another office.
Respondents, in their joint comment, presented a different version. They claimed Adajar personally sold jewelry on credit to various court employees, with Develos merely facilitating by listing the buyers. They denied any consignment agreement and asserted that Develos did not owe any personal balance. They characterized the February 6 incident as Adajar creating a disturbance, and they acted merely to restore order within the office premises.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

RULING

The Court found respondents Teresita Develos and Celsa Ellorin administratively liable, but dismissed the complaint against Cyrus Ellorin. The legal logic proceeds from the fundamental principle that court personnel must adhere to the highest standards of propriety and decorum to preserve public trust in the judiciary. Administrative Circular No. 1-99 explicitly prohibits court employees from engaging in private business during office hours or within court premises.
The Court held that Develos and Celsa Ellorin violated this circular. By facilitating and participating in jewelry sales transactions within the staff room—whether as a consignee, facilitator, or buyer—they engaged in improper private business activity at their place of work. This conduct, occurring during office hours and involving co-employees, tarnishes the dignity and integrity of the court. However, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that Adajar failed to substantiate her specific claims of an unpaid balance owed by Develos, or that Cyrus Ellorin violently pushed her and that Celsa Ellorin hurled insults. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant, and these allegations were not supported by substantial evidence.
The offense is classified as a light violation of reasonable office rules. As first-time offenders, Develos and Celsa Ellorin were meted the penalty of reprimand, with a warning to Develos. The complaint against Cyrus Ellorin was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.