A.M. No. P-06-2102 - Pablejan vs. Calleja

This administrative case arose from a verified complaint filed by Leonida O. Pablejan (noting the signature variation "Leonida O. Pablijan") against respondent Atty. Teresita J. Calleja, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City.
The complaint pertained to allegations of conduct unbecoming a public officer based on respondent’s treatment of her as a household helper.

Complainant charged that upon questioning the limited use of household water for personal hygiene, respondent slapped her twice and ordered her to leave.
It was further alleged that respondent slapped complainant’s mouth until it bled, and with the assistance of her sister (Ester), pushed the complainant against a concrete column, causing a head injury.
Additional claims included that respondent threatened to kill the complainant if she did not leave the premises, belittled her due to her poverty, and provided limited food to the household helpers.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) detailed the facts in its November 4, 2004 Recommendation Report which summarized the complainant’s allegations and the evidence.
Affidavits were submitted by the complainant and another housemaid, corroborating the occurrence of physical abuse and verbal misconduct.
A Medico-Legal Report by Doctors Aris Manuel M. Villasin and Mary Carolyn D. Carillo documented physical injuries, including a superficial abrasion on the face and a linear abrasion on the posterior cervical area.
A Psychiatric Evaluation by Dr. Violeta C. Perez indicated that the complainant suffered from a transient anxiety reaction due to the verbal and physical abuses.

Respondent admitted that upon learning the complainant was below the legal age (under 15 years old), she terminated her employment, citing the prohibition against child labor.
She contended that the complainant’s narrative contained inconsistencies regarding the injuries sustained (specifically the location and number of slaps) and the manner in which she was removed from the residence.
The respondent asserted that the criminal complaint for child abuse, which was dismissed on the grounds of prescription, was not decided on the merits, implying that her administrative liability remained unaffected.
Furthermore, respondent alleged that external parties (specifically a certain Juanito Bansay) had instigated the complaint for pecuniary gain, and that inconsistencies in witness testimonies diminished the credibility of the complainant’s account.

The OCA, after reviewing the evidence—including the affidavits, Medico-Legal Report, and Psychiatric Evaluation—found that the physical abuse and mistreatment were established.
It recommended converting the case into a regular administrative matter and imposing a penalty equivalent to two months of respondent’s salary, emphasizing that similar future misconduct would incur more severe consequences.
On December 13, 2004, the Court noted the OCA report and re-docketed the case accordingly.

Whether the physical and verbal abuse allegations against respondent are adequately corroborated by the complainant’s testimony, the additional witness, and the supporting medico-legal and psychiatric reports.
The significance of minor discrepancies in the witness accounts in affecting the overall credibility of the complainant.

Whether the dismissal of the criminal complaint for child abuse, based on prescription, negates or affects the administrative liability of the respondent.
How the dismissal is weighed in relation to the administrative sanction, given that it was not decided on the merits.

Determining if the administrative penalty of a fine (modified to five thousand pesos) is in line with precedents established in similar cases involving misconduct by judicial employees.
Evaluating the requirement for a stern warning accompanying the fine to prevent future occurrences.