A.M. No. P-11-2979, November 18, 2014
Ella M. Bartolome, Complainant, vs. Rosalie B. Maranan, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ella M. Bartolome filed a sworn affidavit complaint dated December 16, 2009, against respondent Rosalie B. Maranan, a Court Stenographer III at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Imus, Cavite. The complaint charged respondent with extortion, graft and corruption, gross misconduct, and conduct unbecoming of a court employee. Complainant alleged that on October 21, 2009, respondent offered to facilitate the filing of her annulment of marriage case for a fee, initially demanding ₱200,000.00, later reduced to ₱160,000.00. Respondent promised that the case would be decided favorably without the need for court appearances, claiming influence over the judge and fiscal. To stop respondent’s activities, complainant reported the matter to police authorities. An entrapment operation was conducted on November 11, 2009, leading to respondent’s apprehension inside the RTC premises while receiving money from complainant. Evidence submitted included transcribed text messages, an Electronic Psychiatric History form, a police blotter entry, and a video compact disc (VCD) of the entrapment. Respondent denied the accusations, claiming the complaint was harassment and that her detention did not prove guilt. She admitted referring complainant to a lawyer friend, Atty. Renante C. Bihasa, but denied extortion. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found sufficient evidence to support the charges.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Rosalie B. Maranan is guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent GUILTY of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court held that respondent’s actions, as evidenced by text messages and the entrapment operation, constituted a clear abuse of her position as a court employee to extort money under the guise of facilitating legal proceedings. Her bare denial could not overcome the corroborative evidence, including electronic communications and the entrapment video. The Court emphasized that court personnel must uphold the integrity of the judiciary, and respondent’s conduct eroded public trust. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED respondent from service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from employment in any government agency. The Court also ordered further investigation into possible corruption involving annulment cases in RTC, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, and referred the matter to the Ombudsman for appropriate action.