G.R. No. 229262 - H.S. Pow Construction and Development Corp. vs. Shaughnessy Development Corp.

Atty. Jacquelyn A. Labustro-Garcia assumed her position as Clerk of Court V at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Panabo City, on 16 February 2009.
Upon assuming office, she conducted an inventory of the court exhibits and properties using, among other documents, the 9‐page acknowledgment receipt issued by Mr. Gil T. Tribiana, Jr., Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Property Division, OCA.
The inventory covered exhibits and property bonds (titles) stored inside four steel cabinets in the court’s stockroom, as well as properties issued by the Supreme Court.

In the course of the inventory, Atty. Labustro-Garcia discovered discrepancies indicating missing exhibits and unserviceable items.
To address these discrepancies, she reported the matter to the presiding judge, who simply advised her that she was not liable for the lost items.
On 7 May 2009, she sent a letter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) asking for advice on the proper steps to take concerning the missing exhibits and properties.

Prior to the 7 May 2009 letter, Atty. Labustro-Garcia had already undertaken several measures:

On 27 February 2009, she summoned Attys. Mariecris B. Colon-Reyes and Mary Francis Manug-Daquipil, along with other court employees (including the Court Stenographer, Legal Researchers, Court Interpreter, and Clerk III), to attend an investigation scheduled for 27 March 2009.
On 18 March 2009, she sent a letter to Mr. Tribiana, Jr. enclosing the signed acknowledgment receipt together with a report on the missing and unserviceable items.
On 13 April 2009, she wrote to Atty. Giselle Talion of the Office of the Clerk of Court to inquire about the deposit of money reportedly submitted to the RTC.

A memorandum dated 29 June 2009 from Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Nimfa C. Vilches directed both Presiding Judge Jesus L. Grageda and Atty. Labustro-Garcia to:

Judge Grageda was compulsorily retired on 25 November 2009.
In a letter dated 9 February 2012, Marina B. Ching, Chief of Office, Court Management Office, recommended the release of Judge Grageda’s terminal leave benefits.
A memorandum by the OCA dated 18 April 2012 analyzed the conflicting inventories:

Atty. Labustro-Garcia’s report claimed missing exhibits and properties.
Judge Grageda’s report, based on the inventory conducted by court staff, indicated that no exhibits or court properties were missing—items were either extant, unserviceable, held by the Office of the Clerk of Court, or returned to the Supreme Court for replacement.

Additionally, a judicial audit conducted between 17 to 26 November 2009 and its ensuing report dated 08 March 2010 found no missing or lost exhibits and/or court property.

Based on the OCA memorandum, Judge Grageda was recommended to be held liable for a violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, with a proposed fine of ₱20,000.
The Court noted that:

The OCA’s submission of the memorandum was delayed more than two years after Judge Grageda’s retirement.
During his incumbency, Judge Grageda was never given an opportunity to explain or respond to the allegations.
The situation was analogized with previous cases (e.g., Office of the Court Administrator v. Mantua and Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Hamoy), where complaints filed after the judge’s retirement—and without giving the judge a chance to respond—were dismissed.

The absence of substantial proof linking Judge Grageda to any misconduct related to missing exhibits further compounded the decision against pursuing administrative penalties.

Whether the administrative complaint could be pursued after Judge Grageda’s compulsory retirement.
The implications of filing the complaint long after the judicial audit and the judge’s cessation from office.

Whether Judge Grageda was given the opportunity to explain or contest the allegations before disciplinary action was considered.
The requirement that disciplinary proceedings afford the respondent a fair chance to respond to the charges.

Whether there was substantial evidence to prove that missing exhibits and properties existed.
The conflict between Atty. Labustro-Garcia’s allegations and the inventory findings of Judge Grageda and the judicial audit report.

How established cases (e.g., Office of the Court Administrator v. Mantua; Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Hamoy) influence the admissibility of administrative complaints filed post-retirement.
The role of judicial audit timing and the burden of proof in administrative cases against judicial officers.