A.M. No. P-22-057 - Caparos vs. Fajardo

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-22-057)

Complaint Before the MeTC, Taguig City, and Referral to the OCA

On 30 October 2019, the complainant initially filed her complaint before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Taguig City, alleging, in substance, that Fajardo promised to fix and file her annulment case at Branch 170 of the RTC in Malabon, in exchange for a PHP 250,000.00 service fee, and that she paid PHP 248,000.00 in installments. The complainant further alleged that no action was taken as promised and that she pursued barangay proceedings to recover a remaining balance, yet Fajardo did not return it despite demands. The complainant thus sought to institute a collection/small claims case against Fajardo.

In an Order dated 06 December 2019, the MeTC, presided by Judge Juan Jose P. Enriquez III, dismissed the case. It ruled that the claim arose from an incident involving “inappropriate conduct of a court employee” soliciting funds for a favorable annulment case decision, which did not fall under the matters contemplated by the 2016 Revised Rules of Procedure for Small Claims Cases. The MeTC directed that the case be transmitted to the Office of the Court Administrator for appropriate action.

OCA Process and Fajardo’s Comment

In an OCA 1st Indorsement dated 16 January 2020, the OCA referred the complaint to Fajardo for comment. On 24 February 2020, Fajardo submitted her Comment, admitting that she owed the complainant money but denying that the debt arose from any promise to fix and file the annulment case. She maintained instead that the amount constituted a loan she took from the complainant due to her son’s financial and legal troubles, and that she later entered a cycle of repayment difficulty. She also argued that the complaint contained no evidence supporting the allegation that money was paid in exchange for her handling of the annulment case. Fajardo further claimed that she intended to pay the debt, though she sought time to settle the amount, including allegedly upon receipt of proceeds from a loan from the GSIS.

Complainant’s Reply and the Text Message Evidence

The OCA received the complainant’s Reply dated 26 June 2020 on 09 July 2020. The complainant insisted that her allegations were supported by evidence and presented a transcript of text messages exchanged between her and Fajardo. The complainant characterized the exchanges as showing that the money was given to arrange and process the complainant’s annulment case. In the text messages quoted in the record, the complainant discussed delays in sending the petition, continuing payments, and references to drafts, meetings, witnesses, and psychological evaluation requirements connected to the annulment process. The complainant also asserted that Fajardo used a “contact” and made assurances of processing to achieve the annulment timeline.

Findings and Recommendations of the JIB

In a Report dated 25 May 2022, the JIB recommended that the administrative complaint be redocketed as a regular administrative case; that Fajardo be found guilty of Gross Misconduct; and that she be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all or part of her benefits and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The JIB clarified that forfeiture of benefits should not include accrued leave credits. It found no merit in Fajardo’s loan explanation, concluding that the circumstances did not support the claim that the amount was merely a loan rather than consideration for promises connected to processing the annulment.

The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated 17 January 2023, directed the JIB to conduct a hearing. After conducting the required proceedings, the JIB issued a Supplemental Report dated 08 June 2023, maintaining its recommendation that Fajardo be held liable for gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and be dismissed.

The Parties’ Positions and the Core Administrative Issue

The administrative controversy centered on whether Fajardo’s receipt of money from a litigant was connected to a promise to “fix” and facilitate the complainant’s annulment processing, which would amount to misconduct and a violation of the conduct rules governing court personnel. Fajardo initially denied any promise related to the annulment case, characterizing the transaction as a private loan she undertook due to her personal circumstances. In contrast, the complainant insisted that the money was paid as consideration for Fajardo’s assistance in arranging and processing the annulment, and she relied heavily on the text message evidence to support this account.

Legal Basis: Gross Misconduct and Impropriety of Soliciting Money

The Court treated misconduct as a transgression of established rules, entailing unlawful behavior or gross negligence. To qualify as gross misconduct, the Court held that there must be elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, and conduct beyond a mere error of judgment, showing flagrant disregard of established rules. It further emphasized that administrative misconduct must relate to or be connected with the performance of official duties of the public officer.

The Court relied on Villahermosa, Sr. v. Sarcia, which underscored that receiving money from litigants is the antithesis of being a court employee. The Court stressed the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel requirements that court personnel avoid conflicts of interest and must not receive tips or remunerations for assisting or attending to parties engaged in transactions or involved in actions or proceedings with the judiciary. The Court also noted that money given voluntarily does not negate the offense, and that self-serving explanations of good intentions do not absolve court personnel from misconduct. It reiterated that there is “no defense in receiving money from party-litigants,” and that the act itself makes court employees guilty of grave misconduct, warranting dismissal.

Evidentiary Ruling: Authentication and Probative Value of Text Messages

The Court treated the exchange of text messages between the complainant and Fajardo as admissible and probative. It held that the transcript of messages was properly authenticated in accordance with Section 2, Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. In doing so, the Court recognized that prior administrative cases had admitted text messages and upheld their probative value when supported by proper identification and contents.

Application: The Text Messages Refuted the Loan Theory

The Court found that the evidentiary record showed Fajardo received money from complainant in exchange for promises to process and facilitate the complainant’s annulment case. Although Fajardo initially insisted the money was a loan, the Court held that a clarificatory hearing revealed that the transaction was not a loan but an arrangement tied to the annulment processing. The Court cited the hearing exchange where Fajardo effectively acknowledged her involvement in the communications about the annulment petition, referencing the “within” aspect of accelerating the one-year annulment period, the use of a psychiatrist and psychological report process, the forwarding of drafts, the handling of witness arrangements, and continued payments connected to the steps in the annulment proceedings. The Court concluded that these communications were inconsistent with Fajardo’s loan narrative and instead demonstrated her promise-based role.

Code of Conduct Violations: Solicitation or Acceptance for Influence

The Court further held that the conduct violated Canon I, Section 2 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which prohibits court personnel from soliciting or accepting any gift, favor, or benefit based on any understanding that it shall influence their official actions. It also cited Canon III, Section 2(e) of the same Code, which prohibits solicitation or acceptance of gifts, loans, gratuities, discounts, favors, hospitality, or service under circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that the donor’s major purpose was to influence

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-22-057)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Eva Krissel Caparos filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Debhem E. Fajardo, Stenographer III, Branch 170, Regional Trial Court, Malabon City.
The complaint was initially filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Taguig City, and was dismissed by the MeTC.
The MeTC directed that the case be transmitted to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action.
The OCA referred the complaint to Fajardo for comment, and Fajardo filed a Comment admitting receipt of money but characterizing it as a loan.
The OCA received complainant’s Reply, which included a transcript of text messages between the parties.
The matter proceeded to the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), which issued a Report and Recommendation.
The Supreme Court later directed a hearing through a Resolution, and the JIB issued a Supplemental Report maintaining its recommendations.
The Supreme Court resolved the administrative complaint by adopting the JIB’s findings and recommendation.

Key Factual Allegations

Complainant alleged that Fajardo promised to fix and file complainant’s annulment case at Branch 170, RTC Malabon, in exchange for a PHP 250,000.00 service fee.
Complainant claimed she paid PHP 248,000.00 to Fajardo in several installments, and that no movement occurred despite the promised action.
Complainant alleged she filed a case at the barangay to require repayment and demanded a remaining balance of PHP 100,000.00.
Complainant further alleged that despite demands, Fajardo failed to pay the remaining balance.
Complainant pursued the matter as a collection/small claims case.
Fajardo admitted owing complainant a sum but denied that the amount arose from any promise to fix and file the annulment case.
Fajardo claimed the money was a loan because she was a solo parent with a grave financial problem involving her detained son and expenses for his case.
Fajardo asserted that complainant’s narrative changed after the filing of a collection case, shifting from “pagkakautang” to an alleged promise to process the annulment.
In reply, complainant submitted text messages which she asserted showed that money was given to arrange and process complainant’s annulment case.

Evidentiary Record and Text Messages

The administrative record included an exchange of text messages between complainant and Fajardo, which complainant presented as proof of the purpose for which money was given.
The Supreme Court found that text messages in prior administrative cases were admissible and could establish probative facts when properly identified and authenticated.
The Supreme Court ruled that the exchange of text messages between complainant and Fajardo was properly authenticated under Section 2, Rule 11 of the A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, the Rules on Electronic Evidence.
During the clarificatory hearing, Fajardo initially denied the promise-to-process narrative in her earlier submissions, but her answers during the hearing revealed acknowledgement of the discussions concerning annulment processing.
The clarificatory hearing dialogue reflected Fajardo’s attempt to explain “loob” as the court office where the lawyer would file the petition, and it treated the referenced communication as relating to processing of the annulment petition.
The Supreme Court characterized the message content as showing arrangements involving the annulment timeline and steps linked to processing and submission work through a lawyer and associated professionals, including a psychiatrist for psychological evaluation.
The Court treated the text messages as substantial evidence of the improper exchange between a court employee and a party-litigant involving court-related action.

Administrative Standards and Applicable Rules

The Supreme Court reiterated that misconduct is a transgression of an established and definite rule of action, and it must be connected with official duties to constitute an administrative offense.
The Supreme Court distinguished gross misconduct from simple misconduct by requiring elements such as corruption, clear intent to violate the law, and more than a mere error of judgment, or a flagrant disregard of established rule.
The Supreme Court emphasized that court personnel must avoid conflicts of interest and must refrain from receiving tips or remunerations for assisting parties engaged in judicial transactions.
The Court r