A.M. No. P-21-024 - Brasales vs. Borja

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-21-024)

Factual Background

Rachel noticed that her two leave applications for March 2017 were not signed by Judge Brasales. According to the narrative, Rachel feared that the lack of signed leave forms could delay the release of salaries because daily time records would not be processed without the necessary approvals. She therefore requested Maxima to remedy the situation by signing another set of leave applications, and Maxima acceded.

Subsequently, Judge Brasales issued a memorandum on May 2, 2017 charging Maxima with Abuse of Authority and Malfeasance. The charge stemmed from the circumstance that Maxima had signed Rachel’s leave applications without authority. Judge Brasales also pointed to Supreme Court Administrative Circular (A.C.) No. 08-2017 dated February 2, 2017, which required that leave applications of lower court personnel bear the recommendation for approval or disapproval of the presiding judge, or the clerk of court acting as delegated by the presiding judge, in writing.

Judge Brasales then indorsed Maxima’s memorandum and explanation to the OCA for appropriate action on April 17, 2017.

The OCA Proceedings and Recommendation

Upon receipt of the indorsement, the OCA issued a first indorsement dated July 31, 2017, requiring Maxima to submit a comment within ten (10) days from receipt. Maxima sought humanitarian consideration and asked for understanding, explaining that she was working in a single-sala station and had many tasks, which sometimes caused her to be forgetful of the limits of her authority.

Maxima claimed that she received a copy of A.C. No. 08-2017 on March 8, 2017 but that she might have overlooked the circular and did not fully grasp the implications of the new guidelines. She maintained that her act of signing the leave applications was a mere error of judgment made without intent to violate the law. She also reiterated that she initially refused to sign the applications, but then complied after Rachel explained that unapproved leave would delay salary release because daily time records would not be submitted to the court.

After evaluation, the OCA submitted its recommendation on June 23, 2020. It recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that Maxima be found guilty of violation of reasonable office rules and regulations, with suspension for thirty (30) days and a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. The OCA reasoned that Maxima knew she was not authorized to sign the leave applications because she had ordered someone to bring the forms to Judge Brasales for signature and initially refused to sign. The OCA further rejected Maxima’s justification of preventing salary delays, noting that Norala, South Cotabato was only an hour away from Maxima’s station, thus it was not difficult to forward the applications to the judge for signature. At the same time, the OCA observed the absence of deliberate intent to overstep authority or to defy Judge Brasales, characterizing the act as a lapse in judgment about what she should have done when she discovered that the leave applications were unsigned.

Ruling of the Court on Liability

The Court adopted the OCA’s finding of guilt but modified the penalty. It held that Maxima committed violation of reasonable office rules and regulations. The Court emphasized that A.C. No. 08-2017 was explicit: the clerk of court may approve applications for leave of absence of lower court personnel only with prior written authorization from the presiding judge. It was undisputed that Judge Brasales did not authorize Maxima to approve Rachel’s leave applications. Yet, Maxima signed the two leave applications and attempted to excuse herself by reference to her duties as clerk of court and her alleged belated receipt of A.C. No. 08-2017.

The Court acknowledged that Maxima signed the applications because of Rachel’s request so that salaries would not be withheld. Nevertheless, the Court refused to ignore the infraction. It observed that the relevant approval provision in A.C. No. 08-2017 was lifted verbatim from Item IV of A.C. No. 08-2009 dated February 3, 2009 of the Court. The Court reasoned that even before receiving a copy of A.C. No. 08-2017, Maxima should have known that she could not approve or disapprove leave applications without a written delegation from Judge Brasales. The Court also reiterated that unawareness of a circular is not an excuse for noncompliance.

The Court further stressed that a clerk of court is regarded as a role model for court employees under supervision and must remain accountable to the public for all actions. It held that any conduct that violates public accountability and diminishes faith in the judiciary would not be tolerated.

Determination of the Applicable Disciplinary Framework

On the question of penalty, the Court explained the source of its administrative supervision. It cited Article VIII, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel. The Court treated that supervision as exclusive and as the foundation for setting parameters for discipline. It also clarified that judicial discipline cases follow two rule frameworks: Rule 140 of the Rules of Court for judges and justices, and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (CCCP) for other judiciary personnel who are not justices or judges. The Court noted that the CCCP incorporates civil service rules. Where CCCP does not specify sanctions, the Court historically adopted civil service penalty provisions, including the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), as the governing sanctions framework.

The Court then addressed the impact of subsequent administrative issuance on coverage. It referenced the issuance of A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC dated October 2, 2018, which created the Judicial Integrity Board and expanded Rule 140’s coverage to include personnel of lower courts. It also referenced the July 7, 2020 amendment that clarified Rule 140’s coverage over discipline of judiciary personnel, including officials and employees. The Court held that it would apply Rule 140 to court personnel who are not judges or justices as the prevailing legal framework, with an exception: where Rule 140’s application would be prejudicial or would work injustice by increasing gravity or imposing a higher penalty. In such cases, it would apply the civil service rules prevailing at the time of commission, consistent with a criminal-law patterned approach that penal rules have retroactive effect if favorable to the accused.

Applicable Penalty and Retroactivity to Maxima’s Advantage

Maxima committed the act on April 7, 2017, prior to the October 2, 2018 amendment expanding Rule 140’s coverage. The Court therefore held that Rule 140 would not apply if doing so would be prejudicial to Maxima. It found that retroactive application of Rule 140 would be prejudicial, because the civil service framework governing the same offense as of 2011 was more favorable.

Under the 2011 RRACCS, Section 46 (F) (3) classified violation of reasonable office rules and regulations as a light offense punishable by reprimand for the first offense, suspension of one (1) day to thirty (30) days for the second offense, and dismissal from service for the third offense. In contrast, under Rule 140 as amended by A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC, violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars was treated as a less serious charge, punishable by suspension from office without salary and benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months, or a fine of not less than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00 (as stated in the decision). The Court characterized Rule 140’s corresponding penalty options as not favorable to Maxima.

Accordingly, the Court applied the 2011 RRACCS.

Treatment of Prior Offense for Penalty Enhancement

The OCA had invoked a previous administrative case in which Maxima was fined P5,000.00 for Simple Neglect of Duty in In Re: Report on the Judicial and Financial Audit in MTC in Cities, Koronadal City and had been directed to adopt more efficient systems for collecting doc

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-21-024)

The complainant, Hon. Marlo C. Brasales, then Acting Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Koronadal City, South Cotabato, filed an administrative complaint against Maxima Z. Borja, Clerk of Court IV of the same court.
The Court resolved the matter as an administrative discipline case against court personnel for alleged violation of Supreme Court Administrative Circulars and reasonable office rules and regulations.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The administrative case originated from a Memorandum dated May 2, 2017 issued by Judge Marlo C. Brasales charging Maxima.
The memorandum charged Maxima with Abuse of Authority and Malfeasance for allegedly approving leave of absence applications of Court Stenographer II Rachel N. Dadivas without proper authority.
Judge Brasales indorsed the memorandum and explanation to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action on April 17, 2017.
The OCA directed Maxima to submit a comment within ten (10) days.
The OCA later submitted its recommendation to the Court on June 23, 2020.
The Court adopted the finding of guilt but modified the recommended penalty.
The final disposition reprimanded Maxima and imposed a stern warning.

Key Factual Allegations

Rachel noticed on April 7, 2017 that her two (2) leave applications dated March 24, 2017 and March 27, 2017 were not signed by Judge Brasales.
To avoid delays in salary release, Rachel asked Maxima to sign another set of leave applications for March 2017, and Maxima complied.
On May 2, 2017, Judge Brasales issued a memorandum directing Maxima to explain why she should not be administratively charged for signing Rachel’s leave applications without his authority.
The Court noted that Maxima allegedly signed the leave applications despite instructions and the rule that leave applications of lower court personnel should carry the recommendation for approval or disapproval of the Presiding Judge or the Clerk of Court as delegated in writing.
The Court treated it as undisputed that Judge Brasales did not authorize Maxima to approve Rachel’s leave applications.
The OCA found, however, that there was no deliberate intent to overstep authority and to defy the judge, and it characterized the act as a lapse in judgment after discovery that the applications were unsigned.
The Court considered Maxima’s defenses, including claims that she had extensive duties, might have overlooked the circular, and acted to prevent salary withholding.

Administrative Charges and Contentions

The administrative charge invoked Abuse of Authority and Malfeasance tied to unauthorized approval of leave applications.
In her comment, Maxima asked for understanding and humanitarian consideration, asserting that she was a clerk of court of a single-sala station with many tasks and sometimes forgot the limits of authority.
Maxima claimed she received a copy of A.C. No. 08-2017 on March 8, 2017, but she might have overlooked the circular and failed to fully grasp its implication for leave approval.
Maxima contended that her signing was a mere error of judgment without intention to violate the law.
Maxima asserted that she initially refused to sign the applications and only later agreed after Rachel explained that unapproved leave applications would delay the payment of salaries due to daily time records not being submitted to the court.
The OCA ultimately found Maxima guilty of violation of reasonable office rules and regulations, rather than the more severe labels of Abuse of Authority and Malfeasance.
The Court agreed with the finding of guilt for the violation of reasonable office rules and regulations, but it corrected the penalty framework applied.

Governing Administrative Rules

The Court reiterated that the Supreme Court exercises exclusive administrative supervision and discipline over all court personnel.
The Court distinguished disciplinary frameworks by personnel status, referring to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court for judges and justices, and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (CCCP) for judiciary personnel who are not judges or justices.
The Court explained in Investment Corporation v. Gonzales (Boston Finance) that the CCCP incorporates civil service rules, and that where the CCCP does not specify sanctions, the Court may adopt penalties under civil service rules, including Section 50 of the RRACCS.
The Court noted that disciplinary rules may be revised through proper administrative issuance, consistent with the Court’s continuing supervisory power.
The Court discussed A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC, which approved the Judicial Integrity Board and expanded Rule 140’s coverage to include personnel of the lower courts.
The Court emphasized that where retroactive application of the amended Rule 140 would be prejudicial, the Court applies the civil service rules prevailing at the time of the offense.
The Court applied this approach because the act occurred on April 7, 2017, before the relevant amendments expanding Rule 140’s coverage.

Relevant Circulars and Leave Approval

The Court held that A.C. No. 08-2017 explicitly required prior written authorization from the Presiding Judge for the clerk of court to approve applications for leave of absence of lower court personnel.
The Court found that A.C. No. 08-2017 embodied the same approval process copied verbatim from Item IV of A.C. No. 08-2009.
The Court applied the rule that unawareness of a