Facts:

In the case of Sharon Rose O. Agustin vs. Noemi S. Mercado, the complainant, Sharon Rose Agustin, filed a complaint against Noemi S. Mercado, a court stenographer at the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 8, Manila, for grave misconduct, non-payment of just debt, and conduct unbecoming a court personnel. The events leading to the complaint began when Agustin, as a Human Resource Officer for Asia Central Employment Services, Inc., was tasked with handling legal matters for her employer, Mr. Lauro M. Legaspi, who had a pending criminal case in the same court. After Mr. Legaspi missed a hearing due to a medical emergency, a warrant for his arrest was issued. In June 2005, Mercado approached Mr. Legaspi to discuss the warrant and offered to help him settle his case for a fee of P10,000.00. Subsequently, Mercado provided Mr. Legaspi with a folder claiming that his case had been resolved, which contained original court documents. However, shortly after, police attempted to s...

Facts:

Background of the Complaint

• Complainant: Sharon Rose O. Agustin, a Human Resource Officer of Asia Central Employment Services, Inc., entrusted with handling the company’s legal transactions on behalf of Mr. Lauro M. Legaspi.
• Respondent: Noemi S. Mercado, Court Stenographer at the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 8, Manila, accused of grave misconduct and other unethical acts.

Transactions and Interactions

• Mr. Legaspi’s Legal Situation
• Mr. Legaspi had a criminal case pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 8.
• He was unable to appear at a scheduled hearing due to undergoing a triple by-pass surgery; subsequently, a warrant of arrest was issued against him by Judge Caroline Rivera-Colasito.
• Respondent’s Involvement in Legal Transactions
• In June 2005, respondent allegedly approached Mr. Legaspi at the complainant’s office regarding the warrant and his other pending cases before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
• She agreed to help settle the pending case in exchange for a fee of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as bail money.
• In July 2005, respondent returned to the office with a folder labeled “Slight Physical Injury, Nabo vs. Legaspi,” claiming that the case was resolved.
• Shock and confusion arose when it was discovered that the folder contained the original copies of the case records, which were supposed to be securely kept within the court premises.
• Further Alleged Transactions
• Mr. Legaspi requested help in finding a suitable insurance company to secure a surety bond for his labor cases pending before DOLE.
• Respondent instructed him to prepare documents and the money for a surety bond amounting to One Million Forty-Five Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-Four Pesos and Forty-Three Centavos (P1,045,264.43).
• She informed him that the insurance company demanded 12% of the bond amount plus an additional 3% as her processing fee, promptly demanding P31,357.93 (3% of the bond).
• An agent from ZP Insurance Agency later arrived to collect 12% of the bond, issuing a receipt for P104,000.00, only for DOLE to later reject the surety bond due to the insurance company’s expired license.

Personal and Financial Entrapments

• Relationship Beyond Official Capacity
• Complainant and respondent were close friends; the complainant even allowed respondent to stay at her house.
• They shared a room and maintained a personal rapport, which later complicated the professional boundaries.
• Allegations of Financial Misconduct
• Respondent is accused of borrowing money from the complainant on various pretexts such as:
• Funding a case against her uncle upon receiving a Notice of Ejectment against the complainant’s ancestral house in Tondo.

ii. Covering tuition fees for her children.

Administrative Proceedings and Response of the Respondent

• Initial Directives
• On February 20, 2006, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required the respondent to file a comment on the complaint.
• A subsequent resolution on March 29, 2006, ordered the withholding of the respondent’s salaries and benefits for non-submission of her bundy cards since September 2005.
• Respondent’s Absence and AWOL Status
• Respondent repeatedly failed to file her comment despite directives, leading the OCA to warn that a failure to respond would be deemed as submission of the complaint for resolution.
• On July 9, 2006, it was reported that the respondent had been absent without leave (AWOL) since December 16, 2005.
• The OCA’s January 8, 2007 Report confirmed that she no longer reported for work, having moved out of her given address to evade service of court processes.
• Administrative Recommendation
• Based on her prolonged absence and failure to respond, the OCA recommended that the respondent be dismissed from service for cause, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and barred from re-employment in any government office or agency.
• Proceedings for Decision
• On February 12, 2007, the parties were asked to manifest their willingness to submit the case for decision; only the complainant complied, as the respondent’s copy of the resolution was returned unserved.
• The February 12, 2007 Resolution was deemed duly served on the respondent on June 6, 2007.

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Procedural Issues

• Whether the respondent’s AWOL status and failure to file a required comment can affect the Court’s jurisdiction over her case.
• Whether the non-submission of comments is equivalent to an implied admission of guilt.

Nature of the Charges

• Whether the actions committed by the respondent — including meeting with a party litigant, demanding money for processing legal transactions, and removing original court records — constitute grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a court personnel.
• Whether the respondent’s willful failure to pay what is considered a “just debt” to the complainant is a punishable offense under the prevailing standards.

Scope of Administrative Authority

• The extent to which the Court’s authority persists despite the respondent having absconded and evaded service of process.
• Whether the court personnel's misconduct, especially in a judicial setting, warrants dismissal and other stringent penalties.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)