G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-11-2919; May 31, 2011
Case Parties/Title: JUDGE ROWENA NIEVES A. TAN, Complainant, vs. ERNESTO C. QUITORIO, Legal Researcher, Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Judge Rowena Nieves A. Tan, then Acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar, filed an unsworn letter-complaint against respondent Ernesto Quitorio, the Legal Researcher of the same branch, for Grave Misconduct. The allegations were: (1) Quitorio drafted a resolution granting a motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 4052, a case for recovery of ownership and annulment of title, which was never assigned to him (Judge Tan assigned him only appealed cases); and (2) Quitorio informed Corazon Dadulla, the errand girl of the movant Angeles Gomez, that he had already submitted the draft resolution to Judge Tan and advised her to follow it up with the Judge in Balangiga. Judge Tan learned of this when Dadulla contacted her via text message and later visited her in November 2007. When confronted in December 2007 in the presence of the Executive Judge and staff, Quitorio insisted the case was assigned to him and admitted drafting the resolution and informing Gomez about its submission.
In his Comment, Quitorio denied the charges. He claimed he drafted the resolution in the honest belief it was assigned to him, as the records were among those he received, and that Judge Tan had thanked him for the draft in August 2007. He denied informing Gomez but admitted conveying to Dadulla that he had submitted the draft and that “it was up for [sic] them to do whatever they desired,” advising her to follow it up with the Judge. He also refuted that only appealed cases were assigned to him, citing an original criminal case he was allegedly asked to draft a decision for, which he declined. He further claimed Judge Tan berated him publicly and that he had already applied for optional retirement effective December 31, 2007.
In her Reply, Judge Tan countered that Quitorio’s comment contained lies and was libelous. She revealed Quitorio had prior administrative sanctions: a 3-month suspension for simple misconduct (A.M. No. 06-6-340-RTC) and a fine for simple neglect of duty (A.M. No. 06-4-220-RTC). She asserted that by conveying information about the draft resolution to Dadulla, Quitorio violated confidentiality rules. She denied any irregularity regarding the criminal case, noting it was later decided by the incumbent judge, and that the transcripts were incomplete during her tenure. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) verified Quitorio’s prior sanctions and pending retirement application, and the case was referred for investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Ernesto Quitorio is administratively liable for the acts complained of, and if so, what is the proper penalty.

RULING

The Court found respondent Ernesto Quitorio guilty of Simple Misconduct and imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
The Court held that while the charge of Grave Misconduct was not sufficiently proven, Quitorio’s actions constituted Simple Misconduct. The evidence showed he drafted a resolution in a case not assigned to him, violating office procedures and the trust reposed in him. More significantly, he admitted informing a party’s representative (Dadulla) about the submission of the draft resolution and advising follow-up action, which breached the confidentiality required of court personnel under the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. This act created an impression of undue interest and undermined public confidence in the judiciary. His defense of good faith was unavailing, as a legal researcher should have been more circumspect.
The Court considered his previous administrative record (simple misconduct and simple neglect of duty) as an aggravating circumstance. However, given his length of service (over 25 years) and his optional retirement (effective December 31, 2007), the penalty of dismissal was no longer feasible. Applying the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Simple Misconduct is a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. In lieu of suspension, and because he was already out of the service, a fine equivalent to his salary for two months was deemed appropriate. The Court computed this based on his last salary (P5,000.00 per month as of 2007), resulting in a fine of P10,000.00. His retirement benefits were ordered released subject to the deduction of this fine and the usual clearances.