A.M. No. P-17-3754 - Joven vs. Caoili

A Complaint-Affidavit dated May 16, 2014 was filed by Maria Magdalena R. Joven, Jose Raul C. Joven, and Nona Catharina Natividad Joven-Carnacete charging respondent Lourdes G. Caoili, Clerk of Court III, Branch 1, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Baguio City, with impropriety, conduct unbecoming a court employee, and grave misconduct.
The complaint arose from the controversy involving Margarita Cecilia Rillera’s use of an "Unsigned Order of Dismissal" dated May 11, 2011 and the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) as documentary evidence in disputes between Rillera and the complainants in relation to Civil Case No. 7577-R for an accounting of stocks and shares and production of documents.

Complainants alleged that the documents used—specifically the unsigned order and TSN—were non-existent, dubious, and misleading, having falsely influenced rulings in several cases.
They maintained that respondent, as a court employee, improperly assisted Rillera by:

Securing court documents and the purported advanced copy of a court order.
Procuring lawyers for Rillera, allegedly in exchange for monetary benefits and other favors.
Arranging for respondent’s daughter to be employed as Rillera’s private secretary.

The controversy further escalated when criminal cases for perjury, use of falsified document, and falsification of public documents were filed against Rillera. Evidence from Rillera’s own Judicial Counter-Affidavit later indicated that respondent was the source of the spurious documents.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the referral of the case to the Executive Judge of the RTC, Baguio City for a full investigation, report, and recommendation.
The Investigating Judge conducted several hearings, calling both parties’ witnesses and additional independent witnesses to clarify details, including:

Testimony regarding the unsigned Order allegedly from RTC Branch 5, which was found not to have been issued by the said court.
Evidence that the unsigned order and the TSN actually came from respondent Caoili.
Testimony that respondent advised Rillera, procured legal representation, and repeatedly received a monthly allowance of P7,500.00 in exchange for her services.
Evidence of respondent’s improper conduct including pressuring court stenographers and preparing a Judicial Affidavit for one of them, which was later repudiated by the witness.

The unsigned Order of Dismissal, while appearing to be from RTC Branch 5, was not an official document but originated from respondent.
Respondent admitted to assisting Rillera in several capacities:

Additional misconduct included respondent’s attempts to influence court employees to support her defense despite previously being held administratively liable for similar offenses.

Whether respondent Lourdes G. Caoili, by utilizing her position as a court employee to assist a litigant inappropriately, violated the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
Whether her actions—including providing undue assistance, procuring legal counsel for a litigant, and receiving direct monetary benefits—constitute grave misconduct, impropriety, and conduct unbecoming a court employee warranting dismissal from service.