Case Digest (A.M. No. P-07-2340)
Case Digest (A.M. No. P-07-2340)
Facts:
Sharon Rose O. Agustin v. Noemi S. Mercado, A.M. No. P-07-2340 (OCA-IPI No. 06-2388-P), July 26, 2007, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. Complainant Sharon Rose O. Agustin, a Human Resource Officer of Asia Central Employment Services, Inc. (owned by Lauro M. Legaspi), filed a complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging respondent Noemi S. Mercado, a court stenographer of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 8, Manila, with grave misconduct, non-payment of just debt, and conduct unbecoming a court personnel.Agustin alleged that respondent personally solicited money from Legaspi to “settle” his criminal case before MeTC Branch 8 after Legaspi missed a hearing due to triple bypass surgery and a warrant issued. In June–July 2005 respondent allegedly demanded P10,000 as payment for bail, later produced a folder containing the original case records and told Legaspi the case was “finished,” retrieved the originals from the court, and delivered them to the litigant. Respondent also purportedly facilitated a surety bond for DOLE cases, demanded a 3% “processing fee” (P31,357.93) and arranged for an insurer’s agent to collect 12% (receipt for P104,000), but DOLE later rejected the bond because the insurer’s license had expired.
Complainant further alleged a personal relationship of trust with respondent: respondent stayed at Agustin’s home, borrowed money for alleged family and legal needs without repayment, pawned Agustin’s jewelry (pawnshop receipts and respondent’s ID recovered), and induced Agustin to invest capital in a lending business from which Agustin had yet to recover her investment. The OCA required respondent to file comment on February 20, 2006, but respondent failed to file and was twice warned; the registry receipts showed non-receipt, apparently because respondent had moved out of her address. The MeTC pairing judge reported respondent AWOL since December 16, 2005, and the Court withheld respondent’s salaries/benefits for non-submission of bundy cards (Resolution, March 29, 2006).
In its January 8, 2007 Report the OCA found respondent had absented herself upon learning of the complaint, evaded service, and failed to file comment; it recommended dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave and prejudice to re-employment. The Supreme Court required the parties to manifest (Feb. 12, 2007); only complainant complied and the Court deemed service on respondent effective (June 6, 2007). The Court adopted the OCA findings and proceeded to decide the administrative complaint En Banc on July 26, 2007.
Issues:
- Does respondent’s AWOL status and evasion of service divest the Court of jurisdiction or render the administrative complaint moot?
- Does respondent’s failure to file a comment despite directives amount to an implied admission of the charges?
- Do respondent’s acts—meeting with a party litigant to solicit money for a favorable outcome, removing original court records and delivering them to a litigant, demanding fees related to a surety bond, and failing to repay borrowed funds—constitute grave misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming a court personnel, and what penalty is appropriate?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)