A.M. No. P-16-3564 - Barcena vs. Abadilla

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-16-3564)

Facts as Alleged by the Complainant

Judge Barcena narrated that he also acted as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 3 and served as the designated Executive Judge of the MTC. On July 15, 2010, he was in his chamber and received information from Mr. Peter Cusipag, Clerk II, that four OCC personnel—Lorilla, Dupaya, Rosales, and Israel—were outside his chamber in an angry mood and were demanding that he sign their Performance Evaluation Forms (PEFs) for the period January–June 2010. At the time, the complainant stated that Estelita P. Constantino, Court Stenographer II, was encoding an order that he had just dictated.

Judge Barcena explained that the PEFs of OCC personnel were already in an accomplished state. He stated that the PEFs were signed as follows: the personnel signed as ratees, while Abadilla, as rater, had already rated the others; however, for her own supervisor PEF, she had supposedly rated herself, which required the complainant, as next higher supervisor, to sign. He claimed that the deadline for submission was still in August, and that he had repeatedly instructed the OCC personnel not to insist on immediate signatures, but to hold their PEFs until he could personally confer with each staff member to assess individual performance.

Judge Barcena recounted earlier interactions: in the first week of July, Judy Cusipag, Records Officer, sought his signature; he said he would confer with each staff first. On July 12, 2010, Leticia U. Israel, Branch Clerk of Court (Branch III), sought signature; he again reiterated his instruction that he would confer and evaluate before signing. On the same day, Abadilla asked him to sign; he directed her to hold the PEFs and stated that he would sign only on the third week of July after conferences. On July 14, 2010, Abadilla returned and insisted again; he maintained his directive.

When he learned that Lorilla and others were demanding immediate signatures despite these directives, Judge Barcena stated that he questioned Abadilla’s failure to follow his instruction and noticed Lorilla’s presence near his chamber around twelve noon. He ordered one staff member to call Abadilla. Instead of complying, Judge Barcena alleged that Lorilla pointed his finger at him and shouted a protest in Filipino, expressing refusal to comply and asserting that he was present and not afraid of the complainant. Judge Barcena claimed he ignored the outburst and repeated his order for Lorilla to call Abadilla, but that as he turned his back, Lorilla attacked him by grabbing and strangling his neck with his right arm and clamping his body with his left arm, leaving him choking and immobilized. He further alleged that he felt a sharp object pointed at his neck, that he struggled but could not break free, and that a court utility worker later extricated Lorilla’s hands after some time. Judge Barcena said he lost breath and consciousness and later discovered pain and a wound below his left ear.

Efforts to Document the Incident and the Administrative Referral

On July 19, 2010, Judge Barcena wrote a letter to then Executive Judge Conrado F. Manauis, reporting the July 15, 2010 incident and attaching the affidavit-complaint and affidavits of witnessing court employees. He indicated he would file both criminal and administrative charges. Executive Judge Manauis issued a memorandum requiring the OCC employees to reply. The respondents filed a reply dated July 29, 2010, stating they adopted counter-affidavits and affidavits executed in connection with the criminal case filed by Judge Barcena.

On August 2, 2010, Executive Judge Manauis referred the matter to Deputy Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva, recommending that the respondents be charged with gross insubordination and gross disrespect to judicial authority and that an investigation be conducted. DCA Villanueva required comments on the charges. The respondents filed comments, reiterating and adopting their earlier reply.

Respondents’ Version: Absence of Disobedience and Denial of Assault Motive

The respondents collectively denied that they acted under any disobedience to a specific order. Lorilla asserted that at about eleven thirty in the morning on July 15, 2010, he and other OCC personnel went to Judge Barcena to inquire if they could request, politely, that he approve their PEFs. He claimed that the folder with their PEFs had been left on a table and that the instruction given to Dupaya was that they could get the folder if Judge Barcena needed it. Lorilla also stated that they were told to wait and that they did so patiently. He further claimed that Dupaya, Rosales, and Israel went to lunch, and that Lorilla remained to inquire if they could leave the folder and return later.

Lorilla stated that when he asked Constantino in a well-mannered manner if they could leave the folder, Constantino directed another staff member to ask the judge. Lorilla maintained that later Judge Barcena came out of his chambers and suddenly threw the folder containing their PEFs against a table.

In their joint counter-affidavit, Dupaya, Rosales, and Israel asserted that Abadilla did not give them their PEFs and did not instruct them to go to Judge Barcena for his signature. They also said that if they were not told to wait, they would have left immediately.

Abadilla denied any basis for the insubordination charge. She asserted there was no specific order or directive she disobeyed. She denied demanding signatures or receiving knowledge of any alleged plan to attack Judge Barcena. She recalled being summoned to Judge Barcena’s office around twelve noon, where she alleged that the complainant shouted at her and accused her of directing Lorilla.

Complainant’s Reply: Conspiracy Claim and the Alleged Utterances

In his Reply-Affidavit dated August 18, 2010, Judge Barcena insisted that respondents acted in conspiracy to storm his office and coerce him to sign their PEFs. He alleged that when he did not sign them, Lorilla assaulted him and almost choked him to death.

Judge Barcena attempted to support conspiracy by submitting the affidavit of Dante Quinto. Quinto allegedly overheard Rosales uttering words translated as: “Pull him out and we will kick him to the canal,” immediately before the choking incident. With respect to the charge of insubordination against Abadilla, Judge Barcena argued that after he instructed the OCC staff to confer with each employee before signing, Abadilla repeatedly came to his office seeking approval of their PEFs and did not keep the forms under her custody as he allegedly ordered. Judge Barcena stated he was surprised because Lorilla allegedly had custody of the PEFs, which Lorilla was not authorized to keep.

Supplemental Denials by Rosales, Dupaya, and Israel

In their Supplemental Comment dated December 20, 2010, Dupaya, Rosales, and Israel denied that Rosales uttered the cited words. They also claimed the assertion was fabricated to justify a theory of evident premeditation. They further argued that even assuming the utterances were made, Quinto’s affidavit did not state they were directed towards Judge Barcena.

Intervention of Criminal Case and the Administrative Investigation

The Court’s records showed that the OCA had recommended holding the administrative complaint in abeyance pending final resolution of the criminal case for frustrated murder filed by Judge Barcena against the respondents. While the Court noted that recommendation in Resolution dated July 18, 2012, it later directed further actions. On September 17, 2012, the Court ordered Executive Judge Manauis to investigate and report. After Executive Judge Manauis inhibited himself, and another manifestation informed the Court that the OPP filed Information for Direct Assault with Attempted Murder against Lorilla, the Court, on June 26, 2013, referred the administrative investigation to Judge Conrado T. Tabaco, RTC-Branch 9, as Investigating Judge.

Investigating Judge’s Findings

In a Report dated May 15, 2015, the Investigating Judge found no basis to hold Abadilla, Dupaya, Rosales, and Israel administratively liable for gross insubordination and gross disrespect. The Investigating Judge ruled that the theory of conspiracy had not been established and there was no showing that these respondents disobeyed any order or directive of Judge Barcena.

As to Lorilla, however, the Investigating Judge treated the conduct as grave misconduct. Lorilla’s behavior was found to have deviated from the prescribed norms of court personnel. The Investigating Judge recommended a penalty of suspension for six (6) months.

OCA Recommendation: Grave Misconduct for Lorilla; Dismissal for the Others

In an OCA Memorandum dated August 17, 2016, the OCA adopted a different disposition for Lorilla but still dismissed the charges against Abadilla, Dupaya, and Israel. The OCA found Lorilla liable for grave misconduct and recommended suspension without pay for two (2) years, with warning. It dismissed the complaint against Abadilla, Dupaya, and Israel, concluding the complainant failed to prove conspiracy. The OCA also addressed Rosales, recommending he be held liable only for discourtesy in the course of official duties and be fined P3,000.00, relying on Quinto’s affidavit regarding alleged “gutter-like” remarks.

The Court’s Disposition: Dismissal as to Abadilla, Dupaya, and Israel; Liability for Lorilla; No Administrative Liability for Rosales

The Court first adopted the OCA’s recommendation to dismiss the complaint against Abadilla, Dupaya, and Israel for insufficiency of evidence. It held that Judge Barcena failed to establish their criminal-design conspiracy. The Court emphasized that aside from bare assertions of a community of criminal design, the complainant did not show clear and convincing evidence of a conspiracy. It further held that mere presence at the office prior to the physical assault did not suffice to establish conspiratorial liability. The Court reiterated that conspiracy cannot be presu

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-16-3564)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Judge Andrew U. Barcena, Presiding Judge, Branch 1, Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Lal-lo, Cagayan, filed an administrative complaint against James D. Lorilla, Junior Process Server; Ulysses D. Dupaya, Clerk IV; Roy C. Rosales, Clerk III; Roseller O. Israel, Cashier I; and Thelma S. Abadilla, Clerk of Court II, all of the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the MTC.
The complaint charged the respondents with gross insubordination and gross disrespect to a judicial authority.
After the referral and replies at the administrative level, the matter proceeded with OCA and court-directed actions, including investigation by an RTC Investigating Judge.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended dismissal for some respondents and imposition of liability for others.
The Court adopted the OCA’s recommendations for the dismissal aspect, but it modified the penalty for Lorilla by imposing dismissal.

Key Factual Allegations

The incident stemmed from the handling of Performance Evaluation Forms (PEFs) for the January–June 2010 period.
Judge Barcena claimed that on July 15, 2010 around 11:30 a.m., several OCC personnel appeared outside his chamber demanding immediate signing of their accomplished PEFs.
Judge Barcena stated that he was busy drafting a decision and allowed matters to proceed only after he would personally confer with each staff to assess their individual performance before signing the PEFs.
He alleged prior refusals to sign, despite requests made by OCC staff and repeated insistence by Abadilla on multiple occasions, with Judge Barcena insisting she should keep the PEFs meanwhile.
Judge Barcena asserted that, despite his instructions, the PEFs were already in the possession of Lorilla and that this reflected a willful disregard of his verbal directives.
He narrated that around 12:00 noon, while he was outside his chamber, Lorilla was still present and he directed Lorilla to call Abadilla, but Lorilla instead confronted and shouted at him in an angry and menacing manner.
Judge Barcena alleged that after he turned his back, Lorilla forcibly attacked him by grabbing and strangling his neck with his right arm and clamping his body with his left arm, leaving him choking and immobilized.
He claimed that during the attack he felt a sharp object pointed at his neck and that he struggled but failed to break free until court utility worker Alex Tugade extricated Lorilla.
Judge Barcena reported that after the assault he regained breathing and composure, but he experienced severe neck pain and a wound below his left ear.
He submitted a letter report on July 19, 2010 to then Executive Judge Conrado F. Manauis, attaching complaint-affidavits and witness affidavits, and indicating that he would pursue both criminal and administrative charges.
Judge Barcena further insisted in his reply that there was conspiracy among respondents, and he presented an affidavit of Dante Quinto alleging derogatory remarks uttered by Roy Rosales.

Respondents’ Defenses

Lorilla claimed that the group went to Judge Barcena to politely inquire about approval of their PEFs, not to disobey any order.
He alleged that the PEF folder was left in Ms. Cusipag’s care temporarily and that they were merely following an expectation of availability for approval if needed.
He stated that after entering Judge Barcena’s chambers and learning Judge Barcena was busy, they waited for instructions, and later sought to leave temporarily for lunch only to inquire again if they could return later.
Lorilla alleged that he merely asked whether they could leave the folder and return in the afternoon, and he asserted that Judge Barcena then suddenly threw the folder.
In contrast with Judge Barcena’s narrative of an assault, Lorilla denied attacking him and claimed that he pulled the judge’s hands because he feared losing balance after being pushed by Judge Barcena.
The co-respondents Dupaya, Rosales, and Israel asserted, in a joint counter-affidavit, that Abadilla did not give them their PEFs and did not instruct them to go to Judge Barcena for signing.
They insisted they acted on their own volition and would have left immediately if not told to wait.
Abadilla argued that gross insubordination was baseless because there was no specific order she disobeyed.
She denied demanding signing or directing her co-respondents to have their PEFs signed despite the judge’s instructions.
She further denied knowledge of any alleged plan to attack Judge Barcena, and she claimed that she was only summoned to the judge’s office after hearing commotions.

Issues Raised

The Court had to determine whether the respondents committed gross insubordination and gross disrespect to a judicial authority.
The Court had to assess whether the evidence showed conspiracy among respondents to coerce Judge Barcena into signing their PEFs.
The Court had to decide whether Rosales was administratively liable for discourtesy based on the alleged “gutter-like” remarks.
The Court had to determine whether Lorilla’s conduct—shouting and physically assaulting Judge Barcena in court premises—constituted grave misconduct, and what penalty was proper given prior administrative liability.

Statutory and Doctrinal Framework

The Court evaluated the administrative charges using the standard that conspiracy must be proven and cannot be presumed.
The Court applied that, in administrative cases involving misconduct, the evidence requirement is substantial evidence, or such evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
The Court treated misconduct as a transgression of an established and definite rule of action or a dereliction of duty, unlawful be