G.R. No. P-09-2726 & P-10-2884; August 28, 2013
JUDGE ROBERTO P. BUENAVENTURA, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati City, Complainant, vs. FE A. MABALOT, Clerk of Court III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati City, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case consolidates two complaints against respondent Fe A. Mabalot, Clerk of Court III. The first complaint (A.M. No. P-10-2884) arose from a text message sent from Mabalot’s cellular phone to Felipe De Sesto, a staff member, concerning the election case “Gaviola v. Torres” pending before Judge Buenaventura. The text message inquired if De Sesto had received something from Atty. Gaviola (the husband of the protestant and Mabalot’s former boss) and suggested it was for Christmas, assuring that the Judge would not know. Judge Buenaventura viewed this as intimating a bribery attempt, leading him to request Mabalot’s transfer. Mabalot denied sending the message, suggesting someone else used her phone, and argued the message did not prove bribery.
The second complaint (A.M. No. P-09-2726) involved allegations that on May 6, 2008, Mabalot went to Judge Buenaventura’s chamber, rudely accused him of causing her miseries, threatened to harm or kill him, and mocked his religious practices. This was allegedly witnessed by other court personnel. Mabalot claimed she only went to retrieve her books and discuss her work situation, and that her desperate financial and personal circumstances led to an emotional outburst, but she denied any real intent to kill.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether respondent Fe A. Mabalot is administratively liable for her actions as alleged in the two complaints.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Investigating Judge found that for the first complaint, while the elements of direct or indirect bribery under the Revised Penal Code were not fully established, Mabalot violated the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. By not discouraging or rejecting the offer from Atty. Gaviola intended for De Sesto and instead facilitating its transmission, she failed to uphold the public trust character of her office, constituting simple misconduct.
For the second complaint, Mabalot’s act of threatening the life of a judge and creating a hostile work environment constituted Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Court emphasized that court personnel must uphold the judiciary’s integrity and avoid any behavior that demeans its dignity. Mabalot’s claims of emotional distress due to personal problems were not sufficient justification.
Considering the two separate infractions, the Court found the penalty of dismissal too severe. Instead, she was found guilty of both Simple Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Court imposed the penalty of suspension for one (1) year without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.