A.M. No. P-93-822 - Betguen vs. Masangcay

Complainants: Atty. Edwin Betguen, et al., representing the Office of the Clerk of Court of RTC Cabarroguis, Quirino.
Respondent: Dominga P. Masangcay, Clerk IV of the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC Cabarroguis, Quirino.
Charges: Dishonesty, grave misconduct, conviction of an offense, and unauthorized absences.

In 1986, separate criminal complaints for grave oral defamation were filed by Jovita G. Cabanag and Luz Ancheta against the respondent in the Municipal Trial Court of Cabarroguis, Quirino.
After a joint trial, the respondent was found guilty of “intriguing against honor” under Article 364 of the Revised Penal Code and was penalized with a fine of P200.00 plus indemnification of P5,000.00 to each complainant.
On appeal, both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in toto.

The case records of C.A.-G.R. No. 10643 (People of the Philippines vs. Dominga P. Masangcay) were remanded to the Clerk of Court of RTC, Quirino, on November 18, 1991, via registered mail (Registry Receipt No. P-5007).
On November 27, 1991, respondent allegedly received a parcel from Betty Nasto, an employee of the Post Office of Cabarroguis, which contained the said records. Her signature on the postal registry affixed her as the receiver.
The records later went missing from the RTC, and no entry confirming their receipt was found in the court’s logbook. The discrepancy was noted only after the complainants inquired about the status of their cases.

In response to the discovery of the missing records, Atty. Betguen issued a memorandum requiring the respondent to explain why she should not be held administratively liable for their concealment.
The respondent denied any wrongdoing in relation to the loss of the records and claimed that she had indorsed them to her immediate superior, Atty. Betguen.
She further deflected responsibility by citing that multiple employees received court mails and even accused her co-employees and superiors of collusion and undue influence.

Respondent was noted to have been continuously absent from work after her conviction was promulgated on April 29, 1993.
Despite a memorandum from Atty. Betguen, she neither replied nor reported her whereabouts.
Her absence led to the return of her salary checks for April 15 and 26, 1993, and on May 3, 1993, Executive Judge Gregorio Buenavista declared her absent without leave (AWOL) and recommended her dismissal.
Subsequent submissions of belated sick leave applications and time records by the respondent were rejected, as she had already been declared AWOL.
An administrative order on May 31, 1993, issued by Judge Buenavista, further detailed her temporary detail to another court office, which was opposed due to her persona non grata status.

Even though the respondent admitted her conviction for “intriguing against honor,” she maintained that she did not open or conceal the records of C.A.-G.R. No. 10643.
Evidence established, including her own signature on the registry and testimony by postal personnel, confirmed that she did indeed receive the mail parcel.
It was evident through internal office procedures (i.e., placement of the docket number on mailed envelopes and established logbooks) that she, given her long service and duty of handling court records, should have known of the proper protocol.
Furthermore, her improper filing of sick leave applications, which were not in conformity with civil service rules, highlighted her administrative deficiencies.

Whether the respondent’s act of receiving and subsequently concealing the court records of C.A.-G.R. No. 10643 constitutes dishonesty and gross misconduct in office warranting her dismissal.

Was the concealment intentional, given the clearly established procedure for handling court records?
Does the evidence of her signature on the postal registry negate her denial or purported delegation of responsibility?

Whether the respondent’s prolonged unauthorized absences, despite submitting belated leave applications, justify additional punitive measures under the relevant administrative rules.

Can the mere submission of a medical certificate excuse an absence that stretched over two and a half months?

Whether the administrative procedures and chain-of-custody breaches in the handling of court records have been sufficiently proven to support the charges of dishonesty and grave misconduct.

Whether the respondent’s attempt to shift blame to Atty. Betguen, as the overall custodian of court records, adequately absolves her own responsibility in the matter.