Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82900:56739&catid=1581&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:08:36+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. P–09–2648 (formerly A.M. No. 09–4–181–RTC), March 26, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEAH ESPERA MIRANDA, CLERK OF COURT V; AND MS. JOCELYN H. DIVINAGRACIA, CLERK III, BOTH OF THE RTC, BR. 38, ILOILO CITY, Respondents.; A.M. No. P–13–3174 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09–3128–P) - ATTY. REX G. RICO, Complainant, v. CLERK OF COURT V LEAH ESPERA MIRANDA AND CLERK III JOCELYN H. DIVINAGRACIA, Respondents.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEAH ESPERA MIRANDA, CLERK OF COURT V; AND MS. JOCELYN H. DIVINAGRACIA, CLERK III, BOTH OF THE RTC, BR. 38, ILOILO CITY, Respondents.
ATTY. REX G. RICO, Complainant, v. CLERK OF COURT V LEAH ESPERA MIRANDA AND CLERK III JOCELYN H. DIVINAGRACIA, Respondents.
This decision relates to administrative matters arising from the letter–complaint dated October 5, 2004 that Atty. Rex G. Rico (counsel for the plaintiffs in Special Civil Action No. 02–27326) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 38, Iloilo City. The complainant asked the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to conduct an investigation on the alleged tampering of case records by personnel of that court. Atty. Rico likewise file a complaint dated March 30, 2009, arising from the same incident, against Clerk of Court V Leah Espera Miranda and Clerk III Jocelyn H. Divinagracia, both of the same court.
In a Resolution1 dated July 8, 2009, the two complaints were consolidated, since both cases involved the same parties and the same matter.
The complaints trace their roots from the decision2 dated May 26, 2003 of Judge Roger B. Patricio of the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 38, declaring null and void the order dated August 1, 2002 issued by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Iloilo City, in Civil Case No. 99 (109) for Unlawful Detainer (entitled Ledesma Do, et al. v. Avenido Paderna, et al.). The questioned order allowed the private respondents, Avenido Paderna, et al., to redeem the property involved in that case, which property had been levied and sold at public auction to satisfy the judgment in favor of the petitioners, Valerie Ledesma–Do, et al.
On July 21, 2003, Atty. Rico filed a supplement to his motion to expunge, this time alleging that the Notice of Appeal should, just the same, be expunged from the records as it lacked a written explanation why its service or filing was not done personally,7 as required by Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Not satisfied with the NBI’s report, the OCA referred the complaint to then Executive Judge Jose D. Azarraga, RTC, Iloilo City, for further investigation,20 and the judge subsequently submitted his Report and Recommendation.
On July 29, 2009, Atty. Rico filed his compliance, manifesting his willingness to submit the cases for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed.22 Miranda and Divinagracia likewise complied in a joint manifestation23 dated August 7, 2009.
Judge Azarraga, in his Report and Recommendation24 dated April 10, 2007, confirmed that there had indeed been tampering of the records in Special Civil Action No. 02–27326. This was done through the intercalation of the explanation in the Notice of Appeal filed by the private respondents in the case. He found that Divinagracia had actively participated by causing the explanation to be typed by Arlene Baesa, Atty. Castillon’s secretary. Divinagracia admitted calling Baesa’s attention by pointing out to her the absence of the written explanation on the Notice of Appeal. She even provided Baesa with a typewriter for her use in typing the explanation.
Judge Azarraga further reported that Miranda was aware that the lacking written explanation was supplied while at her office using the court’s facilities. During the investigation, Miranda confirmed that she saw Divinagracia receive the Notice of Appeal and take the records of the case from their record room. She attached a copy of the Notice of Appeal with the written explanation to the records of the case and handed it to her. Miranda admitted that the copy sent to Atty. Rico did not contain a written explanation.
Judge Azarraga concluded that, “The facts on record – the admission of the parties, particularly in the documents which are the pleadings attached to the record, the transcript of the investigation proceedings as well as the arguments in their respective memoranda provided substantial evidence to establish that Mrs. Jocelyn Divinagracia, Clerk III of Branch 38, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, allowed and abetted the tampering and falsification of court records, for which disciplinary sanctions are in order.”25 He recommended that Miranda and Divinagracia be reprimanded for falsification and dishonesty.
In an Agenda Report26 dated April 17, 2009, the OCA emphasized that when a pleading is filed in court, the main concern of a receiving clerk is to receive it. She has no authority or discretion to determine whether or not the pleading complied with the Rules of Court as this authority belongs to the presiding judge. The fact that the Notice of Appeal sent to the petitioners was different from that filed in court was not the concern of Miranda and Divinagracia. The OCA recommended that they be admonished to be more circumspect in the discharge of their functions as court employees.
1. According to Atty. Rico, the copy of the Notice of Appeal served upon him did not contain the required written explanation. After he filed his motion to expunge the Notice of Appeal,27 he went to the court and looked at the records of the case and saw for himself that there was no written explanation in the Notice of Appeal28 on file.
3. Judge Patricio, in his order dated October 22, 2003 granting Atty. Rico’s Motion to Expunge the Notice of Appeal, found that the Notice of Appeal did not contain the required written explanation. However, in his order32 dated March 27, 2004, Judge Patricio reversed and set aside his order of October 22, 2003, this time ruling that the typewritten explanation existed at the time the Notice of Appeal was filed but he overlooked it due to oversight.
4. The Notice of Appeal itself shows that it was computerized but the written explanation was typewritten.
In their joint manifestation filed in compliance with the Court’s Resolution dated July 1, 2009, Miranda and Divinagracia denied conniving with the secretary of Atty. Castillon in completing the Notice of Appeal. They claimed that it has been a long standing court procedure for them to examine any pleading being filed with their court to see if the pleading complies with the necessary requisites in the filing of pleadings. Whenever there are lacking requisites, they call the attention of the persons filing so they can completely comply with the requirements. All pleadings in all cases filed in their court are first examined before being received. Miranda further states that she acted in good faith in allowing the secretary to use the office typewriter. It was her belief that being in a public office, it is her duty to serve the public “in whatever way and to whoever.”33 It never entered her mind that giving the secretary the permission to use her typewriter involved giving favor, showing bias to the defendants or doing any injustice to the plaintiffs.
We find no merit in Miranda and Divinagracia’s explanation. Their involvement was not confined to the routinary process of receiving the Notice of Appeal and checking if it complied with the requirements. They knowingly allowed the tampering of the Notice of Appeal to make it appear that it complied with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, during the proceedings on Atty. Rico’s Motion to Expunge the Notice of Appeal, neither Miranda nor Divinagracia informed Judge Patricio about the circumstances leading to the insertion of the written explanation on the Notice of Appeal. Their silence on the matter casts doubts on the veracity of their statements.
As defined, misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rules of action, or more particularly, an unlawful behavior on the part of a public officer or employee.37 Grave misconduct implies wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. The misconduct must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect or failure to discharge the duties of the office. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule must be manifested.38 Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an official or employee who unlawfully or wrongfully uses her station or character to procure some benefit for herself or for another, contrary to the rights of others.39 Miranda and Divinagracia’s act of allowing the tampering of the records of Special Civil Action No. 02–27326 to make it appear that the Notice of Appeal filed by private respondents complied with the requirements constitutes grave misconduct.
Grave misconduct is classified as a grave offense punishable by dismissal even for the first offense, pursuant to Section 52(A) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. However, in the absence of evidence showing that the tampering of the records was done with malice or for financial consideration, we consider their culpability mitigated.
While we could not presume that Judge Patricio had any knowledge or tried to cover–up the tampering of the records committed by his employees, we cannot at this point take any further action against him as he had already been separated from the service when he filed his disability retirement on June 3, 2008.
The Attorney’s Oath mandates a lawyer, among other duties: (a) to do no falsehood; (b) nor consent to the doing of the same in court; and (c) to conduct himself as a lawyer to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the court. Having this in mind, Atty. Castillon and Atty. Lodero’s involvement in the tampering of the records, and in the filing of a falsified document, should be fully investigated to determine if their actions merit disciplinary action.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondents Atty. Leah Espera Miranda, Clerk of Court V, and Jocelyn H. Divinagracia, Clerk III, both of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Iloilo City, GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT. They are individually fined the amount of P40,000.00, with WARNING that their repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
The Court further resolves to DIRECT the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to determine whether the involvement of Atty. Roberto F. Castillon and Atty. Felix O. Lodero, Jr. in the tampering of the records of Special Civil Action No. 02–27326 merits disciplinary action. The Office of the Bar Confidant is hereby directed to docket the matter as an administrative complaint against Atty. Roberto F. Castillon and Atty. Felix O. Lodero, Jr.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Peralta,*Del Castillo, and Reyes,**JJ., concur.
* Designated as Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas–Bernabe per Special Order No. 1650–A dated March 13, 2014.
** Designated as Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez per Raffle dated March 17, 2014.
1Rollo (A.M. No. P–13–3174), pp. 618–619.
4 See Order dated October 22, 2003; id. at 43.
16 Manifestation and Reply to Petitioners’ Opposition; id. at 73–76.
17 Ibid. The Notice of Appeal was signed by Atty. Castillon.
20Rollo (A.M. No. P–09–2648), p. 297.
30 TSN, February 5, 2004, pp. 17–20.
35Guerrero v. Ong, A.M. No. P–09–2676, December 16, 2009, 608 SCRA 257, 263.
37 Ibid.; and Mendoza, Jr. v. Navarro, 533 Phil. 8, 17 (2006).
38Guerrero v. Ong, supra note 28, at 264–265.

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