AM P 05 2063; (October, 2006) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-05-2063 ; October 27, 2006
Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Angelina Casareno-Rillorta, Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), Susan Liggayu, Clerk III, and Virginia A. Manuel, Court Stenographer, Branch 21, all of the Regional Trial Court, Santiago City.
FACTS
An anonymous complaint alleged irregularities in the raffle of cases on November 11, 2003, implicating respondents Angelina Casareno-Rillorta (OIC-Clerk of Court), Susan Liggayu (Clerk III), and Virginia Manuel (Court Stenographer). The core allegations were that Rillorta, while under a three-month suspension, conducted the raffle in the Executive Judge’s absence; that the results were tampered with to reassign a specific civil case (Heirs of Pua v. Metrobank) from Branch 21 to Branch 36, allegedly pursuant to an agreement with a lawyer; and that Manuel was ordered to alter the stenographic notes. The Executive Judge, Fe Albano Madrid, investigated and found that the official minutes of the raffle were authentic and reflected the true assignments. She concluded that the raffle was properly conducted with her in attendance and that no tampering occurred, attributing the controversy to the lawyer’s statement about a prior “agreement.”
ISSUE
Whether the respondents are administratively liable for the alleged irregularities in the raffle of cases and for Rillorta’s act of performing official duties while under suspension.
RULING
The Court dismissed the charges concerning raffle manipulation for lack of substantial evidence. The Executive Judge’s investigation confirmed her presence at the raffle and the authenticity of the minutes, which are entitled to full faith and credence. The allegations of tampering, based largely on hearsay and the lawyer’s questionable remark, were insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. Consequently, the charges against Liggayu and Manuel on this matter were dismissed, with Liggayu merely admonished for general circumspection.
However, respondent Rillorta was found guilty of gross misconduct for willfully defying a lawful order of the Court. Records showed she was under a three-month suspension effective October 16, 2003, yet she performed official duties by participating in the raffle on November 11, 2003. Her claim that she was merely “winding up” her duties was rejected, as such turnover should not take nearly a month. The Court emphasized that its directives are not mere requests but must be complied with promptly and completely. Defiance of a suspension order constitutes disrespect for the Court and gross misconduct. For this, she was fined Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).