Adajar v. Develos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Luz C. Adajar, a Sangguniang Bayan Member and businesswoman, alleged that she delivered jewelry worth ₱70,000.00 on consignment to respondent Teresita O. Develos, a Clerk III at RTC, Branch 8, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. Develos made partial payments totaling ₱50,000.00, but refused to pay the remaining ₱20,000.00 in December 2001, instead giving Adajar a list of customers to collect from herself. When Adajar went to Develos's office on February 6, 2002, to collect the balance, Develos, in an angry and loud voice, reiterated that Adajar should collect from the customers. Respondent Cyrus A. Ellorin, a court interpreter, intervened by shouting at Adajar and physically pushing her out of the staff room. Respondent Celsa G. Ellorin, a court stenographer and wife of Cyrus, allegedly positioned a tape recorder near Adajar's mouth to record her utterances. Adajar claimed she was humiliated and hurt by their actions. Procedural History: The complaint was initially filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao, which dismissed the administrative case. This Court referred the case to the Executive Judge of RTC, Malaybalay City, for investigation. The Investigating Judge adopted the Ombudsman's findings and recommended dismissal. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the case and found respondents Develos and Celsa Ellorin guilty of violating Administrative Circular Nos. 09-99 and 1-99, recommending a reprimand. The complaint against Cyrus Ellorin was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. This Court considered the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed. The Petition: The complainant alleged misconduct against Teresita Develos, Cyrus Ellorin, and Celsa Ellorin. The respondents, in their joint comment, denied the allegations, asserting that the transactions were personal and not related to their official functions, and that Adajar was the one selling jewelry on credit, with Develos merely facilitating the listing of customers. They also contended that Adajar filed a similar complaint with the Ombudsman, which was dismissed.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents Teresita O. Develos and Celsa G. Ellorin violated Administrative Circular Nos. 1-99 and 09-99 by engaging in a jewelry selling and buying transaction within court premises. Whether respondent Cyrus A. Ellorin is guilty of misconduct for allegedly pushing the complainant out of the office. Whether respondent Celsa G. Ellorin is guilty of misconduct for allegedly hurling insults and positioning a tape recorder near the complainant's mouth. Whether the complainant failed to substantiate her claim that respondent Teresita Develos still owes her ₱20,000.00.
Ruling
The Court found Teresita O. Develos and Celsa G. Ellorin guilty of violating Administrative Circular Nos. 1-99 and 09-99 and reprimanded them. The complaint against Cyrus A. Ellorin was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The complaint against Celsa G. Ellorin for hurling insults was also dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of Administrative Circular Nos. 1-99 and 09-99 by Teresita O. Develos and Celsa G. Ellorin: The Court held that the acts of buying and selling jewelry within court premises by respondents Develos and Celsa Ellorin contravened Administrative Circular No. 1-99, which prohibits the use of offices for purposes other than court functions, and Administrative Circular No. 09-99, which bans the selling of goods within court houses and offices. The Court reasoned that while selling is explicitly prohibited, buying is logically also prohibited as it abets selling. The Court emphasized that court personnel must at all times act with strict propriety and decorum to preserve the dignity of the judiciary. The contention that the acts were personal and not related to their duties did not exonerate them from administrative liability. Since this was their first offense of this nature, the penalty of reprimand was deemed proper. On the alleged misconduct of Cyrus A. Ellorin: The Court agreed with the OCA that there was no substantial evidence to prove the complainant's allegations that respondent Cyrus Ellorin engaged in a shouting match or violently pushed her out of the office. The Court reiterated the rule that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant to show by substantial evidence that the respondent committed the acts complained of. In this case, the complainant failed to meet this burden, leading to the dismissal of the complaint against him. On the alleged misconduct of Celsa G. Ellorin (hurling insults and tape recording): Similar to the allegations against Cyrus Ellorin, the Court found no sufficient evidence to support the claim that Celsa Ellorin hurled insults at the complainant. The Court also noted that the tape recorder was not positioned near the complainant's mouth as alleged, but rather on a table nearby, ostensibly to record threatening utterances if the complainant continued her verbal abuse. As with the other allegations against Cyrus Ellorin, the complainant failed to present substantial evidence to prove Celsa Ellorin's misconduct in this regard, thus the complaint was dismissed. On the unpaid balance of ₱20,000.00: The Court agreed with the OCA that the complainant failed to substantiate her allegation that respondent Develos still owed her ₱20,000.00. The evidence presented did not conclusively establish a consignment agreement or an outstanding debt of that amount. The respondents' version, supported by a joint affidavit of other employees, indicated that Develos merely facilitated the listing of customers for Adajar's jewelry sales, and that payments made by the debtor employees were indorsed directly to Adajar.
Main Doctrine
Court personnel are prohibited from selling or buying goods within court premises, as such acts contravene Administrative Circular Nos. 1-99 and 09-99, which mandate the preservation of the dignity and sanctity of courts as temples of justice and prohibit the selling of goods within court houses and offices. Violations of these circulars by court employees constitute misconduct, and the penalty for a first offense is reprimand.