SECOND DIVISION
A.M. No. CA-12-26-P, August 17, 2015
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ANA MARIE ABARENTOS, RECORDS OFFICER IV, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU CITY, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This administrative complaint stemmed from an anonymous letter1 dated February 9, 2011 addressed to Chief Justice Renato C. Corona charging respondent Anna Marie Abarintos, former Records Officer IV at the Judicial Records Division of the Court of Appeals, Cebu station, of tampering the date of receipt of the Petition for Review filed in CA-G.R. SP No. 05464.2 Respondent allegedly made it appear that said pleading was timely filed on November 4, 2010 to favor her husband's kumpadre who filed it. In the same letter, respondent likewise accused of taking the ATM card of her officemate, Records Officer II Elizabeth Gilos (Gilos), and withdrawing therefrom P10,000.00 without the latter's knowledge and consent.
In her Comment,3 respondent denied the accusations. She averred that the issue of tampering had already been clarified and that it did not prejudice the rights and interest of any of the parties in CA-G.R. SP No. 05464. With regard to the alleged unauthorized withdrawal, respondent explained that the same is a personal issue between two friends arising from a simple misunderstanding. According to respondent, the anonymous letter does not deserve the attention of this Court and that the same has caused undue stress and pain to her father-in-law, Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, who was then the Chairperson of the Nineteenth Division of the Court of Appeals, Cebu station. Thus, on February 14, 2011 she resigned from the Court of Appeals.4redarclaw
On December 3, 2012, upon recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), this case was re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and referred to the Court of Appeals, Cebu station for investigation, report and recommendation.5redarclaw
Administrative hearings thereafter ensued.
On March 18, 2013, however, this Court modified its December 3, 2012 Resolution by referring the case to the Court of Appeals, Manila for investigation, report and recommendation.6redarclaw
Thus, the new Investigating Justice in Manila set this case for hearing on January 10, 2014 for the reception of respondent's evidence.7 But respondent instead filed a Manifestation Under Oath8 stating that after consulting her family, she decided not to present any controverting evidence other than those mentioned in her Comment.
Recommendation of the Investigating
Justice
On April 15, 2014, the Investigating Justice submitted his Report and Recommendation,9 finding the charge of tampering unsupported by substantial evidence. He based his conclusion on the testimony of Atty. Lucila C. Enjambre (Atty. Enjambre), Assistant Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, Cebu station, explaining that the Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 05464 was actually filed and received by the Receiving Section of the Judicial Records Division on November 4, 2010. The date November 5, 2010 appearing thereon indicates the date the Office of the Division Clerk of Court received said pleading.
With respect to the charge of unauthorized withdrawal from the account of Gibs, however, the Investigating Justice found sufficient evidence to hold respondent liable therefor. Thus:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
Elizabeth Gilos' identification of respondent in the CCTV recording and her testimony that respondent admitted the withdrawal and even paid her two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) as partial payment for the ten thousand pesos (510,000.00) that was withdrawn from her account conclusively prove that respondent committed the act of withdrawing money from her Land Bank deposit [account with the use of] her ATM card without her consent.10
Section 50, Rule 10 of the RRACS provides that if the respondent is found guilty of two (2) or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances. However, considering that respondent Abarintos already resigned from the service effective 14 February 2011, the penalty of dismissal can no longer be imposed. The penalty of fine is therefore deemed proper.
Furthermore, Section 52 of the same rule provides that the penalty of dismissal carries with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and [being] bar[red] from taking the civil service examination.
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
1. Anna Marie Abarintos, former Records Officer FV, Court of Appeals (Cebu Station) be found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and be FFNED in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (¥20,000.00) and with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave benefits, and perpetual disqualification from holding office in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations; and
2. The Finance Management Office of the Court of Appeals be DIRECTED to DEDUCT the fine of P20,000.00 imposed against Anna Marie Abarintos from whatever sums are due to her as accrued leave credits, if sufficient.12
Sensing that the filing was out of the desired date, ANNA personally tampered the date at our receiving section to make it appear that the pleading was filed on time as November 4 instead of November 5, extrinsically a dismissible ground by technicality, x x x15
Q : Can you assist the Investigator with [regard] to this Petition for Review and show to me when this Petition for Review was received? A : On page 16 of the rollo, Your Honor, we have the Petition for Review. On its face on page 16 there is a mark ["]Received - November 4, 2010["] and this is the signature of Anna Marie Abarintos. This petition was supposedly received by her on November 4, 2010 at 5:10, Your Honor. x x x x Q : So, Atty. Enjambre, you said that it was received on 4 November, right? A : Appearing on page 1 of the Petition, Your Honor. Q : Yes. There is a stamp here on the right side portion of the first page of the Petition for Review as mentioned November 4, but on the left side, Atty. Enjambre, there also appears a stamp ["JReceived - 19th Division, November 5, 2010["]. What is the significance of this other stamp Received? A : From the Receiving Section, Your Honor, the same will be forwarded to the SP Section and then they will docket the case and then they will assign a docket number and then forward it to the Raffle Committee for raffle and after the raffle, the same will be forwarded to the Division Clerk of Court concerned.16
5.1. Adjudicative Support Functions:LawlibraryofCRAlaw5.1.1. Takes charge of docketing all cases received by the Court;x x x x17
5.1.2. Receives and reports to the Divisions concerned all pleadings and communications relative to the cases already filed;
[Justice Yap] Q: Who would know your PIN x x x other than you, of course? Who else did you share [it] with? [Gilos] A: We have phone banking. So, during that time I shared that ATM PIN x x x [with] the respondent because she was inquiring her bank account while I [was] doing the encoding in my table where the telephone was and then she also inquired the balance x x x of my ATM [deposit account]. Q: When would that be? Is it the same day that you discovered the P10,000.00 was withdrawn? A: The same day that the money was withdrawn. Q: November 12 based on Exhibit "A-7"? A: Yes, Your Honor.26 x x x x A: That is why I made a manifestation earlier that I did not approach her. She voluntarily went with me to the bank when she learned that I will be going there to file my complaint because to my belief it was debited by the bank erroneously or system error. That is really my intention of going to the bank to file a complaint so that they will act on it because I am very sure that I did not [make] any withdrawal for that P10,000.00. So, I wanted them to know so that they could conduct an investigation and then would show to me that they really have debited that as a system error. Q: Your first impression was that it was just erroneously debited from your account and you wanted the bank to rectify the system error they committed? A: Yes, that [was] my intention. Q: So, your account is with Land Bank. [In] which branch? A: Capitol Branch. Q: When you went to Land Bank, Ms. Abarintos accompanied you? A: Yes.27 x x x x Q: Land Bank did not [restitute] the amount that was withdrawn or did not return or deposit P10,000.00 to your account? A: No, because according to them x x x it is not a [system] error. x x x x Q: So right now that amount is still unaccounted for[;] it has not been returned to you whether it's system error or unauthorized withdrawal? A: A portion of that was returned. x x x x Q: How much is the amount? A: P2,000.00. x x x x Q: Who [returned the] P2,000.00? A: Ms. Abarintos. Q: Where did she do that, here in the office? A: In the office. Q: Was there any explanation why she paid you P2,000.00? A: That is the only money she could afford during that time. Q: Was that the only x x x [explanation for] the P2,000.00? No other statements were made such as the withdrawal or anything to do with your ATM card or other statements on that regard? A: She made a statement that she did it. Q: And how were you able to take that from her? A: I did not even [ask] her to pay even after viewing. I did not tell her that I already viewed it x x x. Q: This happened after your viewing of the CCTV slides? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Could it be before February 14? A: Yes. Q: So, [the P2,000.00 was just given to you] and then Ms. Abarintos [admitted responsibility]? A: Before she gave that P2,000.00 to me she already called me at home and then she told me that she really did it and x x x apolog[ized] and then after giving the P2,000.00 she told me that she will give me the remaining amount as [soon] as she x x x has the money.28
Endnotes:
1Rollo, p. 1.
2 A Petition for Review filed under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court entitled "Vicente Morga, Glenna Morga and Grace Homeres v. Marikit Cabarrubias Cortez and Conney Agustin Cortez." In a Resolution dated February 21, 2011, the Court of Appeals, Nineteenth Division, Cebu station outrightly dismissed the petition for: (i) being patently without merit; (ii) lack of competent evidence of identity; and, (iii) failure of the notary public before whom the verification and certification was subscribed to indicate his/her notarial commission number. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, rollo of G.R. No. 197643, pp. 50-51. The case was elevated to this Court on Petition for Review on Certiorari and docketed as G.R. No. 197643, id. at 20-39. On November 28, 2011, this Court denied the petition for failure of petitioners to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error, id. at 146-147; penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin and concurred in by Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and Associate Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Martin S. Villarama, Jr. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed, id. at 177-180, but the same was denied thru a Minute Resolution dated April 23, 2012, id. at 176. An Entry of Judgment, id., unpaginated, was subsequently issued.
3 Id. at 5-6.
4 Id. at 7.
5 Id. at 16.
6 Id. at 144-145.
7 See Order dated December 12, 2013, id, at 166.
8 Id. at 168-169.
9 Id. at 182-202.
10 Id. at 196.
11 See Resolution dated September 10, 2014, id. at 61.
12 Id., unpaginated.
13Cutaran v. Judge Villanueva, 178 Phil. 386, 387-388 (1979).
14A Very Concerned Employee and Citizen v. de Mateo, 565 Phil. 657,664 (2007).
15Rollo, p. 1.
16 Id. at 65-66; TSN, April 26,2013, pp. 5-6.
17 The 2002 Revised Manual for Clerk of Court, Vol. I, p. 61.
18Reyes v. Jamora, 634 Phil. 1, 8 (2010).
19 See Supreme Court Circular Nos. 2-99 and 03-2001 prescribing 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. office hours from Monday to Friday.
20Burgos v. Baes, 594 Phil. 580, 589 (2008).
21Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed During the Second Semester of 2004 etc., 502 Phil. 413, 417 (2005).
22Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez, 654 Phil. 602, 608 (2011).
23Re: Deceitful Conduct of Ignacio S. del Rosario, Cash Clerk III, Records and Miscellaneous Matter Section, Checks Disbursement Division, FMO-OCA, 672 Phil. 383, 388 (2011).
24 A.M. No. P-10-2867, June 19, 2012, 673 SCRA 592.
25 A CD containing softcopy of the footage is attached to the rollo of this case.
26 April 26,2013, TSN, rollo, p. 99.
27 Id. at 100-101.
28 Id. at 113-114.
29Racho v. Dulatre, 491 Phil. 169, 178 (2005).
30Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez, supra note 22 at 609.
31Atty. Pasok v. Diaz, 677 Phil. 520, 529 (2011); Rojas, Jr. v. Mina, supra note 24 at 601.
32Concerned Citizen v. Catena, A.M. OCA DPI No. 02-1321-P, July 16, 2013, 701 SCRA 255,262-263.
33Office of the Ombudsman v. Dechavez, G.R. No. 176702, November 13, 2013, 709 SCRA 375, 387, citing Atty. Perez v. Judge Abiera, 159-A Phil. 575, 580 (1975).
34Judge Noel-Bertulfo v. Nunez, 625 Phil. 111, 120 (2010).
35 335 Phil. 511, 526 (1997).