People v. Alarca
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Onofre M. Maranan filed a verified complaint for an act unbecoming an employee against Necitas A. Espineli, Court Stenographer III and OIC-Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Trece Martires City. The complainant was the prosecutor in Criminal Case No. TM-1709, for violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. On January 7, 2000, the Executive Judge issued an Order setting a hearing for January 14, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., for the actual weighing of the shabu in question, stating that no further postponement would be entertained. Procedural History: On January 14, 2000, no hearing was conducted because both the public prosecutor and the defense counsel failed to appear. The complainant alleged that the respondent, without authority, re-scheduled the weighing to January 25, 2000. The respondent, in her comment, denied re-scheduling the weighing, asserting that the trial court did so through its Order dated January 14, 2000. Both parties subsequently agreed to submit the administrative case for decision based on the pleadings filed. The Petition: The Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) sustained the complainant's claim that the respondent acted beyond her authority and recommended a five-day suspension without pay. The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the submitted pleadings.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent, Necitas A. Espineli, acted beyond the scope of her authority in re-scheduling the weighing of the shabu. Whether the complaint against the respondent is meritorious.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against respondent Necitas A. Espineli for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found that the respondent did not act beyond the scope of her authority. The records showed that on January 14, 2000, the Executive Judge issued an Order acknowledging the failure of both the public prosecutor and the defense counsel to appear for the scheduled hearing. Despite the previous order stating that no further postponements would be entertained, the Executive Judge, in the interest of compassionate justice, reset the hearing to January 25, 2000. The Court emphasized that this Order clearly indicated that the weighing of the shabu was to be done during the reset hearing on January 25, 2000. Therefore, it was the trial court, through its Order dated January 14, 2000, that re-scheduled the weighing, not the respondent acting independently. The respondent's role as OIC-Clerk of Court did not involve unilaterally re-scheduling hearings against the directive or action of the judge. On Issue 2: The complaint against the respondent was dismissed for lack of merit. The core of the complaint was the allegation that the respondent unilaterally re-scheduled the weighing of the shabu. However, the evidence presented, specifically the Order dated January 14, 2000, clearly established that the rescheduling was an act of the Executive Judge himself. The respondent merely implemented or was part of the process initiated by the judge's order. Since the alleged act of re-scheduling was performed by the judge and not by the respondent without authority, the basis of the complaint for an act unbecoming an employee was rendered unfounded. The recommendation of the Deputy Court Administrator for suspension was therefore not sustained.
Main Doctrine
A court stenographer, acting as OIC-Clerk of Court, cannot be held liable for re-scheduling a hearing if the rescheduling was done by the trial court itself through a subsequent order, even if the initial order stated no further postponements would be entertained.