G.R. No. MTJ-88-142 and Adm. Matter No. P-89-291, June 17, 1993.
ERLINDA A. MENDOZA, complainant, vs. JUDGE RODOLFO A. MABUTAS, respondent. and JUDGE RODOLFO A. MABUTAS, complainant, vs. ERLINDA A. MENDOZA, respondent.

FACTS

In an Order dated October 27, 1987, Judge Rodolfo A. Mabutas of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calaca, Batangas, recommended the dismissal of his Clerk of Court, Erlinda A. Mendoza, for frequent tardiness, absences without leave, and blatant disregard of courtesy and respect. This order was transmitted to the Office of the Court Administrator. In response, Mendoza, in a letter dated December 21, 1987, admitted to some absences due to unavoidable circumstances but accused Judge Mabutas of oppression, abuse of position, and conduct unbecoming a judge. She alleged he wanted to replace her with someone loyal to him, stripped her of duties, ostracized her, and made unsavory remarks. She also counter-charged that Judge Mabutas was not punctual, reporting for work only on Tuesdays and Wednesday afternoons from July 16 to October 30, 1987, except when she was on leave. On January 3, 1989, Judge Mabutas wrote to the Deputy Court Administrator, stating Mendoza continued her tardiness and frequent unauthorized departures during office hours, and recommended withholding her salary and formal investigation. Mendoza denied these as lies and oppression. The Office of the Court Administrator docketed the complaints as two separate administrative matters. The cases were referred to Executive Judge Ernesto H. Gorospe of the RTC of Balayan, Batangas, for investigation.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether Erlinda A. Mendoza is administratively liable for neglect of duty, inefficiency, frequent unauthorized absences, and gallivanting during office hours; and (2) Whether Judge Rodolfo A. Mabutas is administratively liable for oppression, abuse of position, and conduct unbecoming a judge, as well as for violating office hours regulations.

RULING

The Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the investigating judge with modifications.
1. In Adm. Matter No. P-89-291, Erlinda A. Mendoza was found GUILTY of neglect of duty, inefficiency, frequent unauthorized absences, and gallivanting during office hours. The evidence, including testimonies from court employees and numerous memoranda from Judge Mabutas documenting her tardiness and absences (totaling 104 days from May 1987 to October 1988), substantiated the charges. Her justifications were insufficient. She was SUSPENDED from service for three (3) months without pay, with a warning.
2. In Adm. Matter No. MTJ-88-142, the complaint against Judge Rodolfo A. Mabutas for oppression, abuse of position, and conduct unbecoming a judge was DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, based on his own admission during the investigation that he stayed in his residence during office hours to write decisions, he was found GUILTY of violating Supreme Court Circular No. 13 dated July 1, 1987, which requires judges to observe prescribed office hours. He was sentenced to pay a FINE of P2,000.00, with a warning. The Court emphasized that judges must hold office at the regular place of business and not at their residence to avoid suspicion and preserve the judiciary’s image.