G.R. No. A.M. No. P-07-2298 & A.M. No. P-07-2299. April 24, 2009.
Case Parties:

A.M. No. P-07-2298: PETER B. MALLONGA, Complainant, vs. MARITES R. MANIO, Court Interpreter III, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, Respondent.
A.M. No. P-07-2299: HON. LYLIHA ABELLA-AQUINO, Judge, RTC, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, Complainant, vs. MARITES R. MANIO, Court Interpreter III, RTC, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, Respondent.

FACTS

The consolidated cases involve administrative charges against Court Interpreter III Marites R. Manio for dishonesty and grave misconduct.
In A.M. No. P-07-2298, complainant Peter B. Mallonga alleged that in September 2003, he approached respondent Manio, a former classmate, for assistance in filing a petition for correction of entry in his marriage certificate. Manio recommended a lawyer, asked Mallonga to sign a prepared petition, and requested ₱13,000.00 for attorney’s fees and expenses, which Mallonga paid in installments. In December 2003, Manio handed Mallonga a copy of a purported resolution dated November 25, 2003, allegedly signed by Judge Lyliha L. Abella-Aquino, granting the petition. When the Local Civil Registrar required a certificate of finality, Manio failed to produce it. Upon verification with court clerk Jacinto Danao on June 3, 2004, it was discovered that the docket number on the resolution belonged to another case and the document was spurious. Judge Abella-Aquino confirmed her signature was forged and forwarded the complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
In A.M. No. P-07-2299, based on an affidavit by Bernadette Canlas-Bartolome, it was alleged that her sister, Bety Canlas-Marcelo, filed a petition for correction of entries raffled to RTC Branch 1. Bartolome, acting on her sister’s behalf, was contacted by respondent Manio, a former officemate, who informed her the case was dismissed due to lawyer negligence but offered to re-file it with a guaranteed favorable decision for ₱15,000.00, partly described as a bribe for the judge. Bartolome paid ₱10,000.00 initially and, on December 15, 2003, Manio provided a purported resolution from Branch 4 signed by Judge Abella-Aquino. After paying the ₱5,000.00 balance and an additional ₱500.00 to expedite a certificate of finality, Bartolome discovered on April 14, 2004, through clerk Danao, that the docket number belonged to a different case and Branch 4 had no record of her sister’s petition. Judge Abella-Aquino indorsed the complaint, reporting that Manio admitted forging her signature.
Respondent Manio repeatedly failed to file her comment despite directives from the OCA and the Court, leading to a waiver of her right to be heard. Meanwhile, in a prior administrative case (A.M. No. P-07-2397, Canlas-Bartolome v. Manio, promulgated December 4, 2007) involving the same parties and acts as A.M. No. P-07-2299, the Court found Manio guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct and dismissed her from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from re-employment.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Marites R. Manio should be held administratively liable for dishonesty and grave misconduct in A.M. No. P-07-2298 and A.M. No. P-07-2299.

RULING

The Court DISMISSED A.M. No. P-07-2299, as the charges therein had already been resolved with finality in the prior case of Canlas-Bartolome v. Manio (A.M. No. P-07-2397).
In A.M. No. P-07-2298, the Court found respondent Manio GUILTY of dishonesty and grave misconduct. The detailed, unrebutted affidavit of Mallonga and the letter from Judge Abella-Aquino, supported by the fake resolution, substantiated the charges. Manio exploited her official position to defraud a potential litigant, soliciting money and forging a court resolution, acts constituting dishonesty (a disposition to lie, cheat, or defraud) and grave misconduct (a transgression of established rules involving corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or disregard of duty). Her repeated failure to respond to the charges was deemed an admission of guilt.
Regarding the penalty: Since Manio had already been dismissed from service in the prior case (A.M. No. P-07-2397), the extreme penalty of dismissal could no longer be imposed for this subsequent offense. Following the precedent in OCA v. Cunting, the Court imposed a FINE of ₱40,000.00, to be deducted from her accrued leave credits. The Office of the Court Administrator was also directed to initiate appropriate criminal charges against her.