OCA 10 3450 P; (May, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. OCA IPI No. 10-3450-P. May 11, 2021
MARIA CELIA A. FLORES (LEGAL RESEARCHER II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 217, QUEZON CITY), COMPLAINANT, VS. CLARENCE JOHN R. HIPOLITO (CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 217, QUEZON CITY), RESPONDENT. [A.M. No. P-21-018 [FORMERLY OCA IPI No. 11-3761-P]] CLARENCE JOHN R. HIPOLITO (CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 217, QUEZON CITY), COMPLAINANT, VS. MARIA CELIA A. FLORES (LEGAL RESEARCHER II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 217, QUEZON CITY), RESPONDENT. [A.M. No. P-21-017 [FORMERLY OCA IPI No. 10-3485-P]] MYRLA P. NICANDRO, SARAH S. MIRANDILLA (COURT STENOGRAPHERS), NAOMI C. PADEN (COURT INTERPRETER), CLARENCE HIPOLITO (CLERK-IN-CHARGE), AND RONALD B. OYA (UTILITY WORKER),COMPLAINANTS, VS. MARIA CELIA A. FLORES (LEGAL RESEARCHER II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 217, QUEZON CITY), RESPONDENT. [OCA IPI No. 11-3762-P] MARIA CELIA A. FLORES (LEGAL RESEARCHER II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 217, QUEZON CITY), COMPLAINANT, VS. MYRLA NICANDRO, SARAH S. MIRANDILLA (COURT STENOGRAPHERS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 217, QUEZON CITY), AND NAOMI C. PADEN (COURT INTERPRETER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 217, QUEZON CITY), RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
These are consolidated administrative cases involving employees of RTC, Branch 217, Quezon City. In OCA IPI No. 10-3450-P, Maria Celia A. Flores (Legal Researcher II) charged Clarence John R. Hipolito (Clerk III) with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service and usurpation of function, alleging he sold Avon products inside court premises and released a detainee without authority while she was OIC. Hipolito countered that he merely delivered products for his mother-in-law without profit and that he served a release order with authority from Presiding Judge Arenas. In A.M. No. P-21-018, Hipolito filed a counter-charge of malfeasance against Flores, claiming her complaint was harassment because he reported her illegal act of preparing pleadings for litigants for a fee. In A.M. No. P-21-017, court employees (Nicandro, Mirandilla, Paden, Hipolito, and Oya) charged Flores with willful disregard of a Supreme Court ruling (for continuing to report for work despite a six-month suspension order), conduct unbecoming, and usurpation of authority, citing acts like signing a writ of possession and orders as OIC. Flores denied defying the suspension order, stating she inquired about its effectivity, and claimed her acts as OIC were authorized and meant to enforce office rules against complainants’ infractions. In OCA IPI No. 11-3762-P, Flores charged Nicandro, Mirandilla, and Paden with habitual tardiness and excessive absenteeism, also citing Nicandro’s past performance ratings. The respondents denied the charges. The cases were referred to an Investigating Judge, who recommended dismissing the complaint against Hipolito (OCA IPI No. 10-3450-P), imposing proper penalty on Flores for defying the suspension order, and dismissing the charges against Nicandro, Mirandilla, and Paden (OCA IPI No. 11-3762-P). The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) adopted these findings but recommended a six-month suspension for Flores for Simple Misconduct for defying the suspension order.
ISSUE
The main issues are: (1) Whether Clarence John R. Hipolito is administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service and usurpation of function; (2) Whether Maria Celia A. Flores is administratively liable for willful disregard of a Supreme Court ruling (defying a suspension order), conduct unbecoming, and usurpation of authority; (3) Whether Myrla P. Nicandro, Sarah S. Mirandilla, and Naomi C. Paden are administratively liable for habitual tardiness and excessive absenteeism; and (4) The appropriate penalties for those found liable.
RULING
The Court EN BANC found:
1. The administrative complaint against Clarence John R. Hipolito in OCA IPI No. 10-3450-P is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The charge of selling Avon products was not substantiated, and he presented a Certification and OB Pass showing authority from Judge Arenas to serve the release order.
2. Maria Celia A. Flores is GUILTY of Gross Insubordination for willfully defying the Supreme Court’s suspension order. The Court found her explanations unsatisfactory. She reported for work from May 4 to 25, 2009, after receiving the suspension order on April 30, 2009, and reported back on November 3, 2009, before completing her six-month suspension (which was from May 26 to November 25, 2009). Considering this is at least her second offense (she had a previous administrative case for dishonesty), the penalty of DISMISSAL from service is imposed, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any government agency.
3. The charges against Myrla P. Nicandro, Sarah S. Mirandilla, and Naomi C. Paden in OCA IPI No. 11-3762-P are DISMISSED for lack of merit. The charge of notoriety against Nicandro is also DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.
4. The Court did not rule on the other charges (e.g., usurpation of authority, conduct unbecoming) against Flores in A.M. No. P-21-017, as the penalty of dismissal for Gross Insubordination already subsumed these. The charge of malfeasance by Hipolito against Flores in A.M. No. P-21-018 was also not separately ruled upon.
The Court emphasized that judicial office demands the best possible men and women and will not condone any improper conduct constituting infringement of judicial authority.