Case Digest (A.M. No. P-88-269)
Facts:
In the case of Oscar Abeto vs. Manuel Garcesa, the complainant, Oscar Abeto, filed a verified complaint on October 19, 1988, which was received by the Office of the Court Administrator on November 18, 1988. The complaint charged Manuel Garcesa, a stenographic reporter at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45 in Bacolod City, with misrepresenting himself as a full-fledged lawyer and acting as an authorized representative for Abeto and his co-complainants in labor cases filed with the Regional Arbitration Branch VI of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in Bacolod City. The events leading to the complaint began in December 1986 when Garcesa met Abeto and informed him that he was merely a court employee assisting Mr. Arturo Ronquillo, the Vice President of the Workers Amalgamated Union of the Philippines (WAUP). Garcesa claimed that no lawyer was willing to assist the complainants at that time. The complaint was referred to Garcesa by the Deputy Court Administrato...
Case Digest (A.M. No. P-88-269)
Facts:
Complaint and Allegations:
- Complainant Oscar Abeto filed a verified complaint on 19 October 1988, accusing respondent Manuel Garcesa, a stenographic reporter at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 45, Bacolod City, of misrepresenting himself as a full-fledged lawyer and acting as an authorized representative in labor cases filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Bacolod City.
- The complainant alleged that Garcesa, despite being a court employee, represented him and his co-complainants in labor cases.
Respondent’s Defense:
- In his Comment/Explanation, Garcesa admitted assisting the complainants in the labor cases but denied misrepresenting himself as a lawyer.
- He claimed he informed complainant Abeto in December 1986 that he was only a court employee and was assisting Arturo Ronquillo, Vice President of the Workers Amalgamated Union of the Philippines (WAUP), who was helping the complainants file their cases.
- Garcesa argued that the complaint arose from ill feelings and was designed to malign his reputation.
- He expressed willingness to submit to the Supreme Court’s discretion if his actions were found to violate Memorandum Circular No. 17 (1986) or Administrative Circular No. 5 (1988).
Procedural History:
- The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation.
- Deputy Court Administrator Juanito Bernad initially recommended dismissing the misrepresentation charge but advised Garcesa to adhere to Civil Service Rules and Supreme Court circulars prohibiting government employees from engaging in private business or professions without permission.
- Garcesa later submitted an affidavit of desistance from the complainant and requested an early resolution of the case.
- The OCA reevaluated the case and recommended a reprimand for Garcesa for violating Civil Service Rules and Administrative Circular No. 5.
Key Evidence:
- Annex "A" of the complaint showed that Garcesa and Arturo Ronquillo signed as "Authorized Representatives" in labor cases filed with the NLRC.
- Garcesa admitted providing "casual assistance" to Ronquillo in filing and prosecuting the cases.
Issue:
- Whether respondent Manuel Garcesa misrepresented himself as a lawyer and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
- Whether Garcesa violated Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules and Administrative Circular No. 5 by engaging in private activities without permission.
- Whether Garcesa’s actions constituted malfeasance in office.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court reprimanded Manuel Garcesa for violating Civil Service Rules and Administrative Circular No. 5, emphasizing the need for judiciary employees to prioritize their official duties and avoid activities that could impair their efficiency or public trust in the judiciary.