A.M. No. P-06-2174 ; July 25, 2006
Jerlyn S. Lanuza, complainant, vs. Janet M. Cepe, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Alabel, Sarangani, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jerlyn S. Lanuza assisted her minor niece in filing rape charges against the niece’s father, Roberto Jayme. During the NBI investigation, the niece stayed with the complainant. Complainant alleges that Roberto Jayme, accompanied by respondent Janet M. Cepe (a Court Stenographer), went to her mother’s house to demand custody of the children. A confrontation later occurred before a barangay captain. Complainant claims respondent improperly meddled in these family affairs and subsequently filed slander and grave threats cases against her and her brother. She accuses respondent of misconduct, partiality, and violating professional responsibility by allegedly using her position to influence the withdrawal of the rape case.
Respondent denies the accusations, explaining she merely accompanied friends, the Jayme spouses, regarding a child custody matter. She asserts that the complainant and her brother hurled insults and made threats against her during the barangay confrontation, which prompted her to file the criminal complaints. She contends the administrative case is a retaliatory move.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Janet M. Cepe is administratively liable for misconduct, partiality, and violation of professional responsibility.

RULING

The Court DISMISSED the complaint for lack of merit. Misconduct, to warrant administrative sanction, must be serious, have a direct relation to official duties, and involve unlawful behavior or gross negligence. The Court found no such connection here. Respondent’s act of accompanying friends to a barangay meeting concerning a child custody dispute was a personal undertaking unrelated to her official functions as a Court Stenographer. There was no evidence presented that she used her office to exert undue influence or interfere with the pending rape case, which was not even filed in the court where she worked.
In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish the allegations by substantial evidence. The complainant failed to provide clear and convincing proof that respondent’s actions were corrupt, intentional violations of the law, or demonstrations of partiality in her official capacity. The mere filing of related criminal cases by respondent against the complainant, arising from the same incident, does not by itself constitute administrative misconduct without proof of an abuse of her court position. However, the Court ADVISED respondent to be more circumspect in her personal conduct to avoid any perception of misusing her official standing.