Title
Joven vs. Caoili
Case
A.M. No. P-17-3754
Decision Date
Sep 26, 2017
Clerk of Court Lourdes G. Caoili dismissed for grave misconduct, providing spurious documents, procuring lawyers, and receiving monetary benefits, compromising judicial integrity.

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-17-3754)

Background of the Complaint

The allegations were primarily triggered by the use of an "Unsigned Order of Dismissal" dated May 11, 2011, and a transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) by Margarita Cecilia Rillera, who was involved in various legal disputes with the complainants. The complainants claimed these documents were fabricated and had been improperly utilized by Rillera in court proceedings, adversely affecting their cases.

Criminal Actions and Discovery

Consequently, the complainants initiated criminal complaints for perjury and the falsification of documents against Rillera. During this process, it was discovered via Rillera’s Judicial Counter-Affidavit that the documents in question originated from the respondent, Lourdes G. Caoili. The Deputy City Prosecutor's resolution confirmed that Caoili was indeed the source of the spurious documents, leading the complainants to file an administrative complaint against her.

Respondent's Defense

In her defense, respondent Caoili denied any wrongdoing, asserting that Rillera falsely implicated her to evade liability. She described a benign relationship with Rillera, which involved only social interactions, and maintained that she had no prior knowledge of the unsigned order until she received a communication from Rillera in September 2013. Caoili recounted facilitating the retrieval of the TSN, which further muddled the situation by confirming her operational ties to Rillera, yet outwardly maintaining an innocent narrative.

Investigative Procedure and Findings

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the matter to the Executive Judge for a complete investigation. During the hearings, multiple witnesses testified, including colleagues and associates from the RTC, and the evidence gathered substantiated the complainants’ claims. The Investigating Judge found that the unsigned order was improperly issued by respondent, who had provided ongoing assistance to Rillera, which included securing legal documents and even procuring legal counsel for her, constituting a conflict of interest.

Violations of the Code of Conduct

The Investigating Judge concluded that Caoili’s actions violated several provisions of A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, particularly the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. Specifically, Caoili was found guilty of breaching standards regarding fidelity to duty, conflict of interest, and the performance of her official duties, which amounted to grave misconduct warranting severe penalties.

Final Ruling

Following the thorough evaluation of the evidence and testimony, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Investigating J

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.