AM P 09 2622; (April, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. P-09-2622. April 7, 2009.
DOROTHY FE MAH-AREVALO, Complainant, vs. ELMER P. MAPE, Legal Researcher III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Palompon, Leyte, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Dorothy Fe Mah-Arevalo, a Court Stenographer III, filed administrative charges against respondent Elmer P. Mape, a Legal Researcher III of the same court. The initial charge alleged gross ignorance of the law and incompetence for issuing an entry of judgment and certificate of finality on the same day a decision was rendered in Special Proceeding Case No. 0239-PN. Later, the complainant objected to the respondent’s change to permanent status, charging him with falsification of his Daily Time Record (DTR) for October 30, 2006 (making it appear he was present when he was actually in Cebu City), grave threats (allegedly threatening to kill her and her family while brandishing a .45 caliber gun on November 7, 2006), and grave misconduct (for regularly carrying a gun in court, causing fear). The respondent denied the charges and filed a countercharge against the complainant for dishonesty and malversation of court funds, alleging her complaints stemmed from his discovery of a shortage in her collections. The Office of the Court Administrator referred the case to Executive Judge Celso L. Mantua for investigation.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent is administratively liable for the charges of falsification of DTR, grave threats, grave misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law/incompetence; and whether the complainant is liable for the countercharges, particularly for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information.
RULING
The Court DISMISSED all charges against the respondent for lack of merit. On the falsification charge, the Court found no malice as the respondent had an approved leave for October 30, 2006, and the nearly illegible DTR entry was likely made by another person, which the respondent overlooked when signing. The charges of grave threats and grave misconduct were unsupported by evidence other than the complainant’s bare allegations. Regarding gross ignorance of the law, the Court ruled the respondent’s immediate issuance of the entry of judgment and certificate of finality was proper because the case fell under the Summary Judicial Proceedings of the Family Code, where judgments are immediately final and executory under Article 247.
On the countercharge against the complainant for disclosing court documents (the decision, entry of judgment, and certificate of finality) to the Office of the Solicitor General, the Court found her NOT liable for violation of confidentiality rules. The information was not “confidential information” as defined, since the decision was already final and a matter of public record. Furthermore, there was no evidence she disclosed it to further private interests or prejudice the public interest. However, the Court ADMONISHED the complainant for her non-observance of internal court procedures in releasing the documents without proper authorization, with a warning that a repetition would be penalized. The charge of malversation against her was not supported by sufficient evidence.