Case Digest (A.M. No. P-22-057)
Facts:
Eva Krissel Caparos (complainant) filed a complaint-affidavit on October 30, 2019, initially before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Taguig City, against Debhem E. Fajardo, Stenographer III of Branch 170, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malabon City. Caparos accused Fajardo of promising to fix and file her annulment case at Branch 170 of the RTC in Malabon City in exchange for a service fee of PHP 250,000. She alleged having paid PHP 248,000 in installments, but no progress was made on her case, prompting her to demand the return of the remaining PHP 100,000 balance. The MeTC dismissed the case for falling outside the Small Claims Court jurisdiction, referring it instead to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action as it involved misconduct of a court employee. Fajardo, in her defense, admitted owing money to Caparos but claimed it was a loan due to financial problems and denied the promise to fix or file the annulment case. Caparos submitted text messagCase Digest (A.M. No. P-22-057)
Facts:
- Parties Involved
- Complainant: Eva Krissel Caparos.
- Respondent: Debhem E. Fajardo, Stenographer III, Branch 170, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malabon City.
- Background and Initial Complaint
- Complainant alleged that she was referred to Fajardo by an officemate.
- Fajardo, while working as a court stenographer at RTC Malabon, promised to fix and file her annulment case in exchange for a service fee of PHP 250,000.
- Complainant paid a total of PHP 248,000 in installments but there was no progress on the annulment case as promised.
- Filed a complaint in Barangay Malabon to recover the remaining balance of PHP 100,000, which Fajardo promised to pay during barangay hearing but failed to pay despite demands.
- Procedural History
- Complaint was initially filed before Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Taguig City seeking collection/small claims case.
- MeTC dismissed the case, ruling that the claim involved inappropriate conduct by a court employee and thus an administrative case must be filed instead.
- MeTC ordered the case to be transmitted to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for proper action.
- Respondent's Position
- Fajardo admitted owing the complainant but denied it was for fixing the annulment case; claimed it was a loan of PHP 100,000 with promise to repay with interest.
- Explained financial difficulties due to son's detention and legal expenses.
- Maintained she was complying with the loan obligation albeit difficultly.
- Claimed no evidence other than complainant's self-serving allegations supported the promise to fix the annulment case.
- Complainant's Evidence and Reply
- Provided a transcript of text message exchanges, showing Fajardo promised to arrange and process the annulment case.
- Texts included promises of speedy processing, coordination with lawyers and psychologists, and references to payments related to annulment proceedings.
- Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) Findings and Recommendations
- Recommended re-docketing of the complaint as a regular administrative case.
- Found Fajardo guilty of gross misconduct.
- Recommended dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from future public office.
- Court Hearing and Admissions
- During hearing, text message evidence was reviewed.
- Fajardo admitted the messages indicated she promised to help fix and file the annulment case.
- Texts showed detailed involvement in the annulment process, including drafting petitions and arranging psychological examinations.
- Legal Framework
- Code of Conduct for Court Personnel prohibits soliciting or accepting gifts, favors based on promises to influence official actions.
- Electronic evidence rules admitted text messages as evidence.
- Prior Supreme Court cases establish grave misconduct in receiving money from litigants for processing cases.
Issues:
- Whether the respondent committed gross misconduct by soliciting and accepting money in exchange for promising to fix and file complainant's annulment case.
- Whether the complaint should be treated as a collection/small claims case or as an administrative offense.
- Appropriate penalty for the respondent if found guilty.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)