Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49744:am-p-05-1984-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:57:04+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. P-05-1984 - DAKILA C. MANALABE v. EVELYN D. CABIE, ET AL.
DAKILA C. MANALABE, Complainant, v. EVELYN D. CABIE, Stenographer III; MARITA G. MONTEMAYOR, Stenographer III; TYKE J. SARCENO, Clerk III; and DANILO GARCIA, Process Server, all of Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Manila, Respondents.
This is an administrative complaint filed by Dakila C. Manalabe against EVELYN D. CABIE, Stenographer III; MARITA G. MONTEMAYOR, Stenographer III; TYKE J. SARCENO, Clerk III; and DANILO GARCIA, Process Server, all of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 31.
In a Letter-Complaint1 dated 3 September 2003, complainant alleged that on 20 August 2003, a letter addressed to him was delivered to RTC Branch 31 and was received thereat by respondent Cabie. On even date, respondent Cabie handed it to complainant's wife, Dorothy Manalabe of RTC Branch 22. Upon being informed that the envelope had already been opened, complainant2 asked his wife to immediately return it to RTC Branch 31. Complainant stated that the envelope was torn open reportedly to find out whether it contained the Court's Resolution in the administrative case3 against him filed by his co-workers at RTC Branch 31.
Pursuant to the recommendations of the OCA in its Report19 dated 11 February 2005, the Court in a Resolution,20 dated 4 April 2005, resolved to re-docket the instant administrative complaint as a regular administrative matter and refer the same to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Manila for investigation, report and recommendation. The Court likewise advised complainant that he may file an administrative complaint against Montemayor, Sarceno, and Garcia should he wish to pursue his charges against them, which complainant did in a Complaint-Affidavit21 dated 3 August 2005.
In his Investigation, Report and Recommendation dated 13 April 2007, Judge Reynaldo G. Ros recommended the dismissal of the instant administrative complaint for paucity of evidence and lack of merit.
The Investigating Judge summarized the issue in the present case as follows: Whether respondents are guilty of opening the envelope addressed to complainant. Judge Ros considered the charge as gross misconduct because if proven true, the charge would involve a violation of a constitutionally guaranteed right, that of the right to privacy of communication and correspondence.
Judge Ros, however, found two pieces of evidence that militate against complainant's claim that respondents opened the subject letter in their desire to find out whether it was the Court's Resolution in the administrative case against him.
Second, the logbook of the mailing section of the Office of the Clerk of Court contained the following entries: 2787 Judge Reyes - SC A.M. No. RTJ-02-1728 8-5-03; and 2786 Dakila Manalabe-SC A.M. No. RTJ-02-1728 8-5-03. Presumably, the two missives embodied copies of one and the same document.24 This detail lends credence to respondent Montemayor's allegations that Judge Reyes is furnished a copy of the Court's correspondences to complainant in the administrative case; and that consequently, there would be no need for respondents to open the subject letter.
The Court adopts the recommendation.
Complainant failed to substantiate the charges and allegations he leveled against respondents with evidence. Other than his and his wife's allegations and Malindog's statement, there is nothing in the records that would indicate that respondents opened the subject letter. Malindog's claim that subject letter was sealed at the time of its delivery was disputed by respondents Cabie and Montemayor. This, complainant never addressed.
Moreover, there is basis to hold that this administrative complaint was filed by complainant in retaliation for respondents' having testified against him in another administrative case.30 Further, instead of refuting respondents' arguments, complainant in his pleading detailed respondents' allegedly discreditable acts to malign their character. Taken together, the inevitable conclusion is that the instant case was filed to exact vengeance.
Finally, the Court agrees with Judge Ros that respondents had no motive in opening the subject letter. The logbook of the Office of the Clerk of Court shows that the Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 31 was likewise furnished a copy of the Court's missive to complainant. Respondents, as staff of RTC Branch 31 and as interested parties to the administrative case, would necessarily be informed of the progress of the case.
Accordingly, for being baseless and unsubstantiated, the instant administrative complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against EVELYN D. CABIE, Stenographer III, MARITA G. MONTEMAYOR, Stenographer III; TYKE J. SARCENO, Clerk III; and DANILO GARCIA, Process Server, all of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 31, is DISMISSED with a WARNING to complainant to be more circumspect in filing administrative cases against innocent people.
Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr. JJ., concur.
2 He had been assigned to the Office of the Clerk of Court; TSN, 13 February 2007, p. 6.
3 Ong v. Manalabe, A.M. No. P-05-1931 (Formerly-OCA IPI No. 02-1470-P); In a PER CURIAM Decision promulgated on 13 January 2005, Dakila Manalabe, Legal Researcher of RTC Branch 31 was found guilty of grave misconduct and was dismissed from service; 448 SCRA 106.
22 TSN, 5 March 2007, p. 28.
26 Navarro v. Cerezo, A.M. No. P-05-1962, 17 February 2005, 451 SCRA 626, 629; Planas v. Reyes, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1905, 23 February 2005, 452 SCRA 146, 160-161.
27 Rollo, p. 14. TSN, 5 March 2007, p. 24.
28 TSN, 5 March 2007, p. 41.
29 Ever Emporium, Inc. v. Maceda, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1881, 14 October 2004, 440 SCRA 298, 314.
30 Rollo, pp. 11 and 15; TSN, 5 March 2007, pp. 40 and 49.
31 De la Cruz v. Bato, A.M. No. P-05-1959, 15 February 2005, 451 SCRA 330, 337; Sarmiento v. Salamat, 416 Phil. 684, 695 (2001).

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