Case Summary (A.M. No. P-04-1784)
Incident Overview and Complaints
The administrative complaint originated from a letter sent by Rivera to the Acting Executive Judge of the RTC Manila, Enrico A. Lanzanas, dated February 5, 2002. Rivera alleged that Mendoza engaged in unbecoming behavior by shouting derogatory remarks at her while she conversed with another colleague, Eduardo S. Divina, and later made further disparaging comments about her character on May 15, 2002. Subsequently, Judge Lanzanas directed Mendoza to provide a comment regarding these allegations.
Mendoza's Response and Defense
Mendoza denied all allegations and supplied the affidavits of witnesses, including Divina and Atty. Carolina Peralta-Comon, to substantiate his assertions that no such remarks were made. Additionally, he presented evidence suggesting that Rivera was known for spreading rumors and creating discord among her colleagues. Mendoza requested dismissal of the complaint and sought to file a countercharge against Rivera for her alleged misconduct.
Investigation and Findings of the Office of the Court Administrator
Despite initial findings from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommending dismissal of Rivera's complaint due to lack of evidence, Rivera lodged a motion for reconsideration, asserting the validity of her claims through an additional affidavit from Gerardo M. Capulong. The OCA found that Rivera’s unsubstantiated allegations were contrived and ordered further investigation into the claims against Mendoza.
Further Hearings and Conclusions
Following additional hearings conducted by Judge Lanzanas, he reiterated the dismissal of Rivera's complaint while finding her guilty of misconduct, specifically for spreading false rumors. The findings from the OCA concluded that Mendoza’s countercharge against Rivera was substantiated, leading to recommendations for penalties against both parties.
Judicial Decision and Rationale
The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA's recommendations, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the complainant. In this case, Rivera's allegations lacked the substantial evidence necessary for her claims to hold merit. The testimonies provided by Mendoza's witnesses were found credible, while Rivera’s character was criticized based on numerous formal complaints agai
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-04-1784)
Background of the Case
- The administrative matter involves Antonia C. Buo-Rivera, a Court Stenographer III at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 55.
- Rivera filed a letter-complaint against Renato R. Mendoza, Sheriff of RTC Manila, Branch 18, alleging unbecoming behavior.
- The complaints stemmed from two incidents:
- The first incident occurred on February 5, 2002, where Mendoza allegedly shouted derogatory remarks at Rivera while she conversed with Eduardo S. Divina, a Legal Researcher.
- The second incident occurred on May 15, 2002, involving Mendoza's alleged scurrilous remarks directed at Rivera in the presence of others.
Proceedings Initiated
- Acting Executive Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas instructed Mendoza to submit a comment/answer to Rivera’s allegations.
- Mendoza denied all allegations and provided affidavits from colleagues, including Eduardo S. Divina and Atty. Carolina Peralta-Comon, asserting no such remarks were made.
- Mendoza further accused Rivera of being a troublemaker, stating she habitually spreads rumors.
Further Developments
- While Judge Lanzanas investigated, Rivera filed a formal complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), alleging Mendoza's conduct was prejudicial to public interest.
- The case was subsequently docketed as A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1415-P, and the OCA recommended dismissing Rivera’s c