A.M. No. P-07-2397; December 4, 2007
BERNADETTE CANLAS-BARTOLOME, complainant, vs. MARITES R. MANIO, Interpreter, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Bernadette Canlas-Bartolome charged respondent Marites R. Manio, a court interpreter, with fraud, dishonesty, and forgery. The complainant, assisting her sister Bety in a correction of entries case raffled to Branch 1, contacted respondent, a friend of Bety, to follow up the case. Respondent falsely informed complainant that the case, which had already been dismissed, could be remedied for a fee. Over several meetings, respondent solicited and received a total of P15,500 from complainant, issuing a partial receipt. She later provided complainant with a forged resolution bearing a falsified signature of Judge Lyliha Abella-Aquino and a case number belonging to an entirely different proceeding. Upon verification at the courthouse, complainant discovered no such petition was ever filed or decided in respondent’s branch.
Judge Aquino confirmed the forgery of her signature. When confronted, respondent confessed, citing family problems and complainant’s persistence. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent to comment, but she repeatedly failed to comply despite show-cause orders and a fine from the Court. The OCA noted four other pending administrative complaints against respondent involving similar fraudulent schemes.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Marites R. Manio is administratively liable for her actions.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct warranting dismissal. The Court found the allegations substantiated by the complainant’s affidavit, supporting documents, and respondent’s own confession to Judge Aquino. Her actions—soliciting money under false pretenses, fabricating a court resolution, and forging a judge’s signature—constitute grave misconduct and dishonesty of the highest order. These acts directly undermine public trust in the integrity of the judiciary. Respondent’s repeated failure to file her comment, despite directives, further evidenced her disregard for judicial processes and constituted contempt.
The legal logic is grounded in the stringent ethical standards required of all court personnel. Their conduct must be beyond reproach to preserve public confidence in the courts. Acts that create an impression that court processes can be influenced for money are severely condemnable as they bring the entire judiciary into disrepute. Given the gravity of the offenses, which were not isolated as shown by other pending cases, the supreme penalty is justified. Dishonesty and grave misconduct are punishable by dismissal even for a first offense under the Civil Service Rules. The Court imposed dismissal with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave) and prejudice to re-employment, and directed the OCA to initiate criminal prosecution.