Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83911:58666&catid=1589&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:09:02+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. P-11-2979 [formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3352-P], November 18, 2014 - ELLA M. BARTOLOME, Complainant, v. ROSALIE B. MARANAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, IMUS, CAVITE, Respondent.
ELLA M. BARTOLOME, Complainant, v. ROSALIE B. MARANAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, IMUS, CAVITE, Respondent.
This administrative matter started through the sworn affidavit-complaint1 in the vernacular, dated December 16, 2009, that Ella M. Bartolome (complainant) filed against Rosalie B. Maranan [respondent, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Imus, Cavite], charging her with extortion, graft and corruption, gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a court employee.
The complainant alleged that the respondent asked money from her in the amount of P200,000.00, which was later reduced to P160,000.00, to facilitate the filing of her case for annulment of marriage. She further alleged that the respondent undertook to have the case decided in her favor without the need of court appearances during the proceedings of the case.
To put an end to the respondent’s extortion activities, the complainant decided to report the matter to the police authorities. During the entrapment operation conducted by police officers of Imus Police Station, the respondent was apprehended inside the premises of the RTC, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, in the act of receiving the money from the complainant.
The Court, in a 1st Indorsement6 dated March 19, 2010, required the respondent to comment on the complaint against her.
In her Comment dated May 27, 2010,7 the respondent denied the accusations against her. She alleged her belief that Bartolome is a fictitious name as the affidavit-complaint does not indicate the complainant’s exact address. She asserted that her detention at Imus Police Station does not prove her culpability since no actual criminal charges were filed against her. She claimed that the lapse of six (6) months from the time of the alleged incident indicates that the complaint is pure and simple harassment orchestrated by a lawyer or litigant who has a grudge against her and who wants to publicly besmirch her reputation. In support of her defense, the respondent mentioned that even Judge Fernando L. Felicen (Judge Felicen), Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite interceded for her release from detention.
On July 29, 2010, the complainant sent a letter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA),8 without indicating her address, alleging that she has to constantly change residence because unidentified persons had been seen in their neighborhood asking questions about her. She has also been receiving text messages from the respondent telling her that her complaint would only be dismissed because she knows people in the Supreme Court. The respondent also threatened retaliation against her after the case is terminated. The complainant further claimed that the pieces of evidence she submitted are sufficient to prove the respondent’s anomalous activities, and prayed for the immediate resolution of her complaint.
respondent Maranan be immediately DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except her accrued leave credits, and with perpetual disqualification from employment in any government agencies or instrumentalities, including government owned and controlled corporations.
In a Resolution dated September 5, 2011,10 the Court required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit their case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed. The respondent filed her Manifestation dated November 17, 201111 submitting the case for resolution by the Court. She reiterated her complete innocence and “vigorous” and “vehement” denial of the allegations against her. She insisted that the present complaint against her is plain and simple harassment and a vexatious suit by the complainant who either has a grudge against her or must have been used by another person with a grudge against her. All she did was to secure the services of a lawyer at the complainant’s request; this act, she claimed, does not constitute graft and corruption, gross misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a court employee and extortion.
The complainant did not respond to our September 5, 2011 Resolution as it was returned unserved on her. We nevertheless considered the case submitted for resolution considering her letter of July 16, 2010 praying for the immediate resolution of her complaint.
In our Internal Resolution dated December 7, 2011,12 we resolved to refer the complaint to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
The OCA responded through its Memorandum of July 16, 2012,13 finding that the pieces of evidence on record establish the guilt of the respondent on the charges of Gross Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service filed against her. It recommended that the respondent be found guilty of the offenses charged and be dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits except her accrued leave credits and with perpetual disqualification from employment in any government agency.
The Court fully agrees with the OCA’s recommendation.
Sino nagrefer sayo sakin ano pangalan?
Natitiwala ako sayo ha dahil hindi lahat pinagbibigyan namin. Sally n lang tawag mo sakin nagtataka lng kc ako kanina kc buong buong buo yung txt ng name ko e.
The complainant described the respondent as an influence peddler in the courts of Imus, Cavite who acts as a conduit to judges, prosecutors and private law practitioners.
Oo, ang number ko ay 09175775982, ok thank you.
Under Section 1, Rule 11 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.
We viewed the VCD and the video showed the actual entrapment operation. The complainant herself certified that the video and text messages are evidence of her complaint against the respondent, “Sapat at malinaw ang lahat ng ebidensya na kasama ng aking reklamo na nagpapatunay na totoo lahat ang nakasaad sa aking reklamo. Kitang kita sa video at sa mga text messages niya ang kanyang modus operandi at paggamit niya ng pwesto sa gobyerno upang makapanghingi ng malaking pera sa mga inosenteng tao.” It is also well to remember that in administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.25 A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC specifically provides that these rules shall be liberally construed to assist the parties in obtaining a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases.
The Court totally agrees with the OCA’s finding that the respondent is guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The respondent’s assertion that Bartolome is a fictitious name because the complainant has not stated in her complaint her exact address is preposterous in light of the evidence of direct personal and text message contacts between them. In the absence of supporting evidence, the claim that the complaint against her is pure and simple harassment orchestrated by persons with grudge against her, is mere conjectural allegation.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Rosalie B. Maranan, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, GUILTY of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and is accordingly DISMISSED from the service, with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency including government-owned or controlled corporations. Her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits are ordered forfeited. This decision shall be immediately executory.
The Court further Resolves to REQUIRE Judge Fernando L. Felicen, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite and Atty. Renante C. Bihasa, to file their Comments on their alleged participation in the anomalous activities of the respondent, within fifteen (15) days from notice. This directive is without prejudice to the investigation of all or selected employees and officials of the Branch, who may have participated in anomalous transactions relating to annulment of marriage.
The Office of the Court Administrator is hereby directed to submit to this Court, within thirty (30) days, a list of the annulment of marriage decisions of Judge Fernando L. Felicen for the past ten (10) years, indicating therein the judgments made and the names of participating lawyers and prosecutors.
The Office of the Chief Attorney shall analyze the submitted data, including the records of and the proceedings in the listed cases, and recommend to the Court the actions it should take in the event a pattern of corruption involving annulment of marriage cases emerges. The Office of the Chief Attorney is given ninety (90) days from receipt of the Office of the Court Administrator’s list, within which to submit its recommendations to the Court.
The Office of the Court Administrator shall likewise refer this administrative case and its records to the Ombudsman for whatever action it may take within its jurisdiction.
Sereno, (Chief Justice), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Peralta, and Bersamin, JJ., on leave.
20 Sec. 1(k), Rule 2, A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC - Re: Rules on Electronic Evidence, dated July 17, 2001.
21 Id., Section 2, Rule 11.
24 Id. at 2-3 and 69-70.
25Nuez v. Cruz-Apao, A.M. No. CA-05-18-P, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 288, 300.
26Narag v. Manio, A.M. No. P-08-2579, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 206, 211.
28Canlas-Bartolome v. Manio, A.M. No. P-07-2397, December 4, 2007, 539 SCRA 333, 339-340; Narag v. Manio, id at 211-212; Mendoza v. Tiongson, A.M. No. P-90-454, December 17, 1996, 265 SCRA 653, 655; and Fabian v. Galo, A.M. No. P-96-1214, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 375, 379.
29Mendoza v. Tiongson, supra note 28 and Fabian v. Galo, supra note 28.
30Fabian v. Galo, supra note 28; Mallonga v. Manio, A.M. No. P-07-2298, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 335, 341.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.