A.M. No. P-22-053 - Santiago vs. Ferdo

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-22-053)

Origin of the Complaints and Respondent’s Position

Respondent was a Utility Worker I assigned to Branch 18, Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City, Cavite, before being appointed by the complainant judge as Clerk III in charge of civil cases in December 2014. After respondent’s appointment, the complainant judge initiated disciplinary proceedings based on alleged operational and ethical irregularities that affected the administration of justice in his court. The OCA later proceeded with the matter under Revised Rule 140.

First Complaint: Alleged Insubordination and Delay in Transmitting Records

In a Complaint dated August 11, 2015, the complainant judge charged respondent with Insubordination, Irregularity in the Performance of Duty, and Gross Neglect of Duty. The complainant judge alleged that respondent failed to comply with his directives despite repeated admonishment and written warnings. Specifically, respondent allegedly did not immediately refer to the complainant judge the Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence in two land registration cases: LRC No. TG-14-035 filed on October 10, 2014, and LRC No. TG-14-060 filed on February 17, 2015. The alleged effect of the omission was that the complainant judge could not decide these cases promptly. The Formal Offer pleadings were allegedly transmitted to the complainant judge only on August 11, 2015.

Respondent, in a Comment dated November 9, 2015, maintained that any lapses were unintentional and resulted from his preoccupation with numerous daily tasks. With respect to the delay in transmitting the Formal Offer, respondent allegedly shifted responsibility to co-employees. For LRC No. TG-14-035, respondent claimed that Remy Ligsa was tasked to attach the Formal Offer to the case folder. For LRC No. TG-14-060, respondent alleged that he was instructed only on February 16, 2015 to give the case folder to the complainant judge, and that he could not transmit it immediately because it was supposedly given to him by Madonna Cunanan only on May 18, 2015.

Supplemental Complaint: Alleged Continued Irregularities, Misconduct, and Missing Records

On October 5, 2015, the complainant judge filed a Supplemental Complaint charging respondent with Continued Irregularities, Gross Incompetence, and Gross Misconduct. The complainant judge alleged that, on September 18, 2015, Mrs. Lolita Borja arrived at the court shouting and looking for respondent. She claimed that on May 22, 2015, respondent asked for P40,000.00 to facilitate the bail of her son, Eric Borja y Guevana, detained for violating Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. TG-15-1030. Despite payment, the complainant judge alleged that the son remained in jail.

The complainant judge further alleged that during the January 2014 semestral inventory, he ordered all court staff to surrender records in their possession. When he compared the docket with the records on hand, several criminal case records allegedly submitted for decision or resolution were unaccounted for. The complainant judge ordered a search of the office, including respondent’s work area, and allegedly discovered 51 criminal case folders and one juvenile and domestic relations court case in respondent’s possession. The complainant judge also alleged that on February 14, 2014, he noticed three criminal case folders in respondent’s custody, and that when confronted, respondent claimed that Sheriff Laydabell G. Pijana instructed him to mail the orders to the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor and a public attorney’s office lawyer. The complainant judge issued memoranda directing both Sheriff Pijana and respondent to explain, and each allegedly denied the other’s claim.

Finally, the complainant judge alleged that when petitioners in LRC No. TG-14-078 and LRC No. TG-13-1891 followed up on their cases’ status, the corresponding records were nowhere to be found. After the complainant judge ordered further searching, the missing case records were allegedly found inside respondent’s steel drawer.

OCA Directives, Respondent’s Failure to File Comment, and AWOL

In a 1st Indorsement dated November 3, 2015, the OCA directed respondent to file a Comment to the Supplemental Complaint within ten days from notice. Respondent requested an additional period, citing health reasons, and the OCA granted his request. Despite this, the records showed that respondent went on AWOL without filing the required comment. In a 1st Tracer dated January 16, 2017, the OCA reiterated that respondent must file a comment within five days of receipt, warning that the matter would be submitted to the Court without his comment if he failed to comply. Complainant judge later reported, through a Memorandum dated March 21, 2017, that respondent last logged in on January 22, 2016 and thereafter remained AWOL. In a Resolution dated November 29, 2017, respondent’s name was stricken from the rolls.

OCA Recommendation and Findings

In a Memorandum dated April 25, 2018, the OCA recommended that the administrative matter be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be found GUILTY of Gross Insubordination and Grave Misconduct, with the sanction tailored to the supervening separation from service. Because respondent had been dropped from the rolls effective November 29, 2017 for AWOL, the OCA recommended the imposition of accessory penalties in lieu of dismissal: forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government instrumentality including government-owned or controlled corporations.

For Gross Insubordination, the OCA held that respondent was remiss in duty by failing to timely present case folders to the complainant judge, causing delay in case resolution. The OCA further concluded that because respondent failed to file a comment to the supplemental charges, allegations concerning the withholding of 51 criminal case folders and the records for LRC No. TG-14-078 and LRC No. TG-13-1891 were treated as uncontested. The OCA characterized respondent’s conduct as disobedience to established court procedure, tantamount to Gross Insubordination, a grave offense under Section 50(B) (9), Rule 10 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, punishable by suspension for a stated range for a first offense.

For Grave Misconduct, the OCA found respondent liable for receiving money from a litigant. The OCA noted that even when afforded an opportunity to refute the allegation and challenge the authenticity of respondent’s signature on a handwritten note confirming receipt of P40,000.00, respondent did not file a comment, and the OCA treated his silence as an admission. The handwritten note reflected that respondent allegedly received P35,000.00 for safekeeping on May 12, 2015, and that on May 22, 2015, respondent received additional P5,000.00 for a total of P40,000.00.

Issue Framed by the Court

The Court framed the single issue as whether respondent could be held administratively liable for Gross Insubordination and Grave Misconduct.

Preliminary Matters: Applicability of Revised Rule 140 and Effect of AWOL

At the outset, the Court ruled that the applicable rule was Revised Rule 140 under A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, effective April 4, 2022. The Court emphasized that Revised Rule 140 was designed as a disciplinary framework independent from Civil Service Rules and uniformly applicable to cases regardless of when the infractions were committed. The Court also held that respondent’s absence without leave during the pendency of the administrative case did not prevent the Court from determining liability and imposing the proper penalty. Jurisdiction was considered attached upon institution of the administrative case while the employee remained in government service, and it was not lost by subsequent separation. Likewise, respondent’s failure to file a comment did not bar the Court from imposing sanctions based on the evidence on record.

The Court’s Substantive Rulings: Two Counts of Gross Insubordination and One Count of Gross Misconduct

After reviewing the record, the Court adopted the OCA’s findings but modified the outcome by adding an additional count of Gross Insubordination based on respondent’s failure to file a comment despite notice. Thus, the Court found respondent guilty of two counts of Gross Insubordination and one count of Grave Misconduct.

The Court explained that Gross Insubordination is characterized as the inexplicable and unjustified refusal to obey an order a superior is entitled to give, and it involves willful or intentional disregard of lawful and reasonable instructions. The Court further described it as manifested by brazen disrespect and defiance toward superiors. The Court identified two separate grounds for Gross Insubordination. First, respondent’s conduct toward the complainant judge as his superior included the repeated failure to transmit pleadings and case documents in a timely manner, which affected prompt resolution of cases. The Court treated the complainant judge’s directives to transmit pleadings and records without unnecessary delay as well within authority because judges must supervise court personnel and address operational irregularities within their control. The Court found that respondent’s repeated disobedience could not be discounted by explanations absent a sufficient showing of wrongdoing or corruption in the withholding of records. The Court stressed that delay in adjudication is inimical to the constitutional imperatives of justice.

Second, the Court held that respondent’s failure to file a comment despite receipt of the OCA’s 1st Indorsement dated November 3, 2015 was itself a separate act qualifying as Gross Insubordination. The Court noted that respondent requested an extension, which the OCA granted, yet respondent nonetheless went AWOL without submitting his comment. The Court characterized this as willful disrespect for lawful OCA directives. It further h

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-22-053)

Judge Jaime B. Santiago (complainant judge) filed two administrative complaints against Romelito G. Fernando, a court Utility Worker I of Branch 18, Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City, Cavite (respondent), for alleged irregularities and misconduct in relation to respondent’s functions.
The complaints were indorsed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action, and the OCA later issued a Report and Recommendation to find respondent administratively liable and impose penalties.
The Supreme Court resolved the issue of respondent’s administrative liability for Gross Insubordination and Grave Misconduct, under Revised Rule 140 (A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, effective April 4, 2022).

Parties and Procedural Posture

The complainant judge initiated two separate administrative charges against respondent while respondent remained connected with the judiciary, first as Utility Worker I and later as Clerk III in charge of civil cases appointed in December 2014.
The OCA directed respondent to file a Comment to the Supplemental Complaint, and the OCA granted respondent an extension, yet respondent did not file the Comment and went AWOL.
The OCA conducted and considered the investigation record, including the absence of a responsive pleading from respondent to the Supplemental Complaint, and later recommended dismissal from service via accessory penalties due to respondent’s supervening separation from service.
During the Supreme Court’s review, the Court adopted the OCA’s findings with modifications, including an additional count of Gross Insubordination tied to respondent’s failure to file his Comment despite notice.
The Supreme Court held that respondent’s absence without leave during the pendency of the case did not bar resolution and did not defeat jurisdiction over an administrative complaint instituted while respondent was still in government service.

Key Factual Allegations

Respondent was a court employee assigned to Branch 18, and the complainant judge appointed him as Clerk III in charge of civil cases in December 2014.
In a Complaint dated August 11, 2015, complainant judge charged respondent with Insubordination, Irregularity in the Performance of Duty, and Gross Neglect of Duty.
Complainant judge alleged that respondent failed to timely refer to him the Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence in two land registration cases, LRC No. TG-14-035 and LRC No. TG-14-060, causing delay in the prompt resolution of these cases.
Complainant judge asserted that the Formal Offers were belatedly given to him only on August 11, 2015, despite repeated admonishment and written warnings.
Respondent in his Comment dated November 9, 2015 claimed that any lapse was unintentional and attributed the delay to his numerous daily tasks and to co-employees, including identifying Remy Ligsa and Madonna Cunanan in connection with attachment or delivery of the Formal Offer and case folders.
In a Supplemental Complaint dated October 5, 2015, complainant judge charged respondent with Continued Irregularities, Gross Incompetence, and Gross Misconduct, anchored on alleged requests for money from a litigant and the discovery of missing case folders in respondent’s custody.
Complainant judge alleged that on May 22, 2015, respondent asked P40,000.00 to facilitate the bail of Eric Borja detained for violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, under Criminal Case No. TG-15-1030, and that despite payment the detainee remained in jail.
Complainant judge alleged that during a January 2014 semestral inventory, he discovered missing records and ordered staff to search, leading to the discovery of 51 criminal case folders and one Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court case inside respondent’s possession.
Complainant judge further alleged that on February 14, 2014, he noticed additional criminal case folders in respondent’s custody, and respondent claimed that Sheriff Laydabell G. Pijana instructed him to mail orders to the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor and the Public Attorney’s Office lawyer.
When complainant judge confronted respondent and served a memorandum requiring explanations, respondent and Sheriff Pijana denied each other’s claims and pointed to the other as responsible.
Complainant judge alleged that records for LRC No. TG-14-078 and LRC No. TG-13-1891 were nowhere to be found when followed up, but were later discovered inside respondent’s steel drawer.
The Supreme Court noted that the factual charges concerning withholding of records and receiving money were treated as uncontested because respondent failed to file the required Comment to the Supplemental Complaint.

OCA Actions and Respondent Non-Compliance

The OCA, through its 1st Indorsement dated November 3, 2015, directed respondent to file a Comment to the Supplemental Complaint within ten (10) days from notice.
Respondent requested an additional period until March 29, 2016, citing health reasons, and the OCA granted the extension.
Despite the grant of extension, respondent allegedly went AWOL without filing the required Comment.
In a 1st Tracer dated January 16, 2017, the OCA reiterated the directive for respondent to file a Comment within five (5) days of receipt, with a final warning that the administrative matter would be submitted to the Court without his Comment.
A memorandum from complainant judge reported that the Official Attendance Logbook showed respondent last logged in on January 22, 2016, and thereafter remained AWOL.
The Supreme Court recorded that by a Resolution dated November 29, 2017, respondent’s name was stricken from the rolls.

Applicable Rules and Governing Framework

The Court applied A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC titled “Further Amendments to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court” (Revised Rule 140), effective April 4, 2022, because it was designed as a disciplinary framework for the entire judiciary independent from Civil Service rules.
The Court held that the retroactive application of Revised Rule 140 was proper to pending and future administrative cases involving judiciary personnel disciplinary matters, consistent with Revised Rule 140, Section 24.
The Court also held that respondent’s absence without leave during the pendency of the administrative case did not prevent the Court from determining liability and imposing the proper penalty because jurisdiction attached when the complaint was instituted while respondent was still in government service.
The Court further held that respondent’s failure to file a Comment did not hinder the Court from imposing sanctions for established infractions because the matter proceeded based on the available record evidence and because the failure to answer or comment could result in waiver to participate.
The Court relied on Revised Rule 140 provisions on sanctions, multiple offenses, penalty in lieu of dismissal, and payment of fines to calibrate penalties to the respondent’s supervening separation from service.

Issues Presented

The principal issue for resolution was whether respondent could be held administratively liable for Gross Insubordination and Grave Misconduct.
The Supreme Court additionally considered whether respondent should be held liable for an additional count of Gross Insubordination based on his failure to file a Comment despite notice.
The Court addressed the effect of respondent’s non-filing and AWOL on evidentiary treatment, including whether the charges remained undisputed and could be treated as impliedly admitted by silence.
The Court addressed the proper penalty when dismissal from service was no longer possible due to respondent’s supervening separation from the rolls.

Contentions of Respondent

Respondent in his Comment dated November 9, 2015 denied willful misconduct and claimed the lapses were unintentional.
Respondent asserted that his alleged delay in transmitting case materials was due to his heavy workload and the acts or responsibilities of co-employees.
For LRC No. TG-14-035, respondent claimed Remy Ligsa was tasked to attach the Formal Offer to the case folder.
For LRC No. TG-14-060, respondent claimed that he received instruction to give him the case folder only on February 16, 2015, and that he could not transmit it immediately because the folder was only given to him on May 18, 2015 by Madonna Cunanan.
Respondent did not file any Comment to the Supplemental Complaint despite OCA directives, despite the granted extension, and despite subsequent tracer directives