DISMISSED ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES

Seventy (70) court personnel accused Judge A of violating judicial ethics when she
issued orders requiring payments of stenographers notes with explanation why they are
paying P2,000 to P5,000 for each transcript of stenographic notes. Indeed, if plaintiffs
pay sum of money to her officer-in-charge and stenographers every ex parte
presentation of evidence in Replevin cases, Judge A should have filed bribery cases
to these plaintiffs and administrative cases to these stenographers. But nothing, not
even one was filed. Reason Judge A has no evidence and bases in violation of Code
of Judicial Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct.

Seventy (70) court personnel accused Judge A of sowing intrigues among her staff,
sometime one day, she told stenographers X and XX: Kaya naman siya pumapasok
ay dahil sa iyo Rob, kaya huwag mo siyang pakiaalaman, kundi isusumbong kita sa
asawa mo which stenographer X replied, Dahil sa akin po maam? E parang kapatid
po ang turing ko sa kanya.

Seventy (70) court personnel accused Judge A of instigating court interpreter XXX to
demand from stenographer W the local allowance for OIC because her designation
was improperly made. When court interpreter XXX declined to get the allowance
because she did not work for it, Judge A threatened her with administrative sanction
for insubordination.

Seventy (70) court personnel accused Judge A of violating Canon 2, Section 2 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct when during the hearing of case, Atty. B complained about
dishonest court process server that he accused Judge A of covering up process
servers misdeeds in open court, Judge A allegedly remarked to him, Some of my
staff engaged into some irregularities, they asked money from litigants, I reported them
to OCA, the remark in open court is uncalled for because it placed them into shame.

Seventy (70) court personnel accused Judge A of violating judicial ethics by allowing
her cousins who are not court employees to use the office telephone and internet
facilities for several long hours that created the impression that court employees are
merely using the telephone and browsing the internet during office hours.

Seventy (70) court personnel accused Judge A of ordering utility aide X to carry and
move a heavy table despite of knowledge that stage is suffering from 4th stage cancer.
When court process server XX volunteered, Judge A insisted utility aide X to carry
it in spite of his pain and serious illness. Because of this, his condition exacerbated and
his chin bled profusely, he was hospitalized for weeks and he died later. It is patent
abuse of authority.

1
Seventy (70) court personnel accused Judge A of unceasingly harassing cancer
patient utility aide X by ordering the latter to hand deliver several letters to the
Supreme Court even during stormy weather. It is oppression and harassment.

Seventy (70) court personnel accused Judge A of compelling plaintiffs to buy transcript
of stenographic notes especially in default and ex parte hearings because the case is
uncontested and no cross-examination needed. This is baseless in violation of circular
that provided stenographers shall give certified transcript of notes taken by them to
every person requesting the same upon payment to the clerk of court.

Seventy (70) court personnel accused Judge A of requiring lawyers to explain in ex

parte hearings who flatly denied any payment to the officer-in-charge or stenographers,
they sought opinion of the executive judge regarding the propriety of collection of ex
parte fees when Metropolitan Trial Court Officers-In-Charge are prohibited to conduct ex
parte hearings.

Seventy (70) court personnel accused Judge A of denying application leave of

stenographer X for lack of written explanation not required by Memorandum Circular
No. 41. S. 1998 that is harassment and oppression.

Did Judge A commit the judicial infractions alleged by seventy (70) court personnel?
The answer is in the negative.

Judge A replied that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for
a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Further, the
complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his
complaint. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent
to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given
credence. Hence, when the complainant relies on mere conjectures and suppositions,
and fails to substantiate his allegations, the administrative complaint must be dismissed
for lack of merit (De Jesus v. Guerrero et al., G.R. No. 171491, September 4, 2009
citing Manalabe v. Cabie, A.M. No. P-05-1984, July 6, 2007, 526 SCRA 582, 589;
See also Adajar v. Develos, A.M. No. P-05-2056, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA
361, 376-377; Ong v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1538, October 22, 2004, 441 SCRA
150, 160; Datuin, Jr. v. Soriano, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1640, October 15, 2002, 391
SCRA 1, 5).

Contrary to the allegations of seventy (70) court personnel, court employees B, C,

D, E, F, G, and H were charged by court employee A for Dishonesty, Grave
Misconduct, Inefficiency, Incompetence, Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of Service,
Gross Discourtesy and Gross Insubordination based on uncontroverted pieces of

2
documentary evidence submitted before the Office of the Court Administrator and the
Department of Justice.

Court Employee B

1. Unauthorized absences on August 8, 2010, August 10, 2010, August 22-26,

2010

Proofs: Courts calendars and orders for August 8, 2010, August 10, 2010, August 22-
26, 2010 submitted to OCA

2. Failure to attach a duly authorized medical certificate to her leave application;

court employee D caused the notarization of the certificate by lawyer in P City without
the physical presence of the physician from M City who signed it. Despite the courts
denial of her leave application for August 8, 2010 and August 10, 2010, she still did not
show up for work and thus failed to prepare court employee Cs monthly report on civil
cases

Proofs: Court employee Bs letter asking permission for 2 weeks leave of absence
addressed to court with application of leave; Courts partial disapproval of leave form
with annotation forwarded to OAS OCA; Subpoenas to the attending physician and
notary public to refute the false allegations of court employees B and D

3. Making false entries in the criminal and civil docket inventory

Proof: The criminal and civil docket inventory report submitted to OCA

4. Intentionally making false entries in the July 2010 Monthly Report for Criminal
Cases

Proof: The July 2010 Monthly Report for Criminal Cases submitted to OCA

5. Making misleading calendars (i.e. erroneous stage of the case, wrong parties)

Proof: The misleading calendars submitted to OCA

6. Omitting the orders of People vs. Coco in the courts February 2010 Report

Proofs: The original and amended February 2010 Report submitted to OCA

7. Habitually leaving the courts premises during trial and coaching the Public
Prosecutor

Proof: Subpoena Public Prosecutors and Public Attorneys

3
8. Filing false complaints under oath based on threats and harassment against their
Judge for reporting graft and corruption

Proofs: Complaint for Theft, Illegal Exactions, Violation of RA No. 3019, Violation of RA
No. 6173, Indirect Bribery, Multiple Counts of Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and
Accessories at DOJ with Independent Pieces of Evidence as attachments submitted to
OCA

9. Loafing during office hours

Proof: Subpoenas the court personnel of RTC

Court Employee C

1. Conniving with court employee B to make false entries in the criminal and civil
docket inventory

Proof: The criminal and civil docket inventory submitted to OCA

2. Ordering the transmittal of the records of civil case no. 123 titled Prada vs.
Prada for appeal despite the pendency of a motion for reconsideration

Proof: Courts orders submitted to OCA and RTC that accepted the transmitted case
records

3. Filing false complaints under oath based on threats and harassment against their
Judge for reporting graft and corruption

Proofs: Complaint for Theft, Illegal Exactions, Violation of RA No. 3019, Violation of RA
No. 6173, Indirect Bribery, Multiple Counts of Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and
Accessories at DOJ with Independent Pieces of Evidence as attachments submitted to
OCA

4. Loafing during office hours

Proof: Subpoenas the court personnel of RTC

Court Employee D

1. Misleading the court that the appeal fee was paid in civil case no. 456 when upon
verification it turned out that no fee was paid by the parties

4
Proofs: The orders and papers attached to civil case no. 456 submitted to OCA

2. Misinforming the parties in civil case no. 456 relative to the date of the hearings
and failing to send the pertinent court orders
Proofs: The orders and papers attached to the records of civil case no. 456 submitted to
OCA

3. Detaching the comment of the prosecution in the case of People vs. Chuva

Proofs: The orders and papers attached to case records of People vs. Chuva submitted
to OCA

4. Misinforming complainant A that a person requesting for a copy of the

resolution in People vs. Major was the private complainant when in fact it was the
accused

Proofs: The orders and papers attached to the records of People vs. Major submitted to
OCA

5. Misleading the court that the appeal fee has been paid in the case of PHS case

Proofs: The orders and papers attached to the records of PHS case submitted to OCA

6. Placing a kitchen knife near the chambers of the court in violation of

memorandum

Proofs: Memorandum and Police Blotter Report submitted to OCA

7. In cahoots with court employee X, go home early at quarter to four o clock with
misleading explanation of availing flexi-time then discovered accidentally by their Judge
when court employee Z (now deceased) punched their time cards in bundy clock at
four o clock or past four o clock

Proof: Court employee Z while still alive who refused to execute an affidavit

8. Non-compliance of courts order in People vs. Sipsip

Proof: courts order submitted to OCA; TSN of contempt proceedings

Cited in contempt of court in People vs. Sipsip

9. Filing false complaints under oath based on threats and harassment against their
Judge for reporting graft and corruption

Proofs: Complaint for Theft, Illegal Exactions, Violation of RA No. 3019, Violation of RA
No. 6173, Indirect Bribery, Multiple Counts of Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and

5
Accessories at DOJ with Independent Pieces of Evidence as attachments submitted to
OCA

10. Loafing during office hours

Proof: Subpoenas the court personnel of RTC

Court Employee E

1. Unauthorized absence on May 14, 2010

2. Unauthorized absences on August 8, 2010 and August 17, 2010

Proofs: Courts calendars and orders for May 14, 2010, August 8, 2010, August 17,
2010 submitted to OCA

3. Omitting material testimony in the TSN in Criminal Case No. 890 Proofs: Original
and amended TSN submitted to OCA

4. Misquoting several quotes in Criminal Case No. 345 which were later used by the
parties in the case in filing an administrative case against the court before the
Ombudsman

Proofs: The orders and papers attached to the records of Criminal Case No. 345
submitted to OCA

5. Making and submitting intentional or unintentional wrong or false contents of

courts orders for signing

Proofs: Various courts orders submitted to OCA. These submitted proofs consisting of
orders are due for signing not mere drafts contrary to the findings of the Office of the
Court Administrator

6. Receiving P2,000 to P5,000 stenographers fees

7. Failure to pay the unremitted legal fees to JDF (stenographers fees)

8. Failure to comply with memorandum dated October 19, 2010 on refund of

unremitted legal fees

9. Failure to comply with various orders to attach the receipts of paid legal fees

10. Failure to refund the plaintiff-banks

6
11. Filing false complaints under oath based on threats and harassment against their
Judge for reporting graft and corruption

Proofs: Complaint for Theft, Illegal Exactions, Violation of RA No. 3019, Violation of RA
No. 6173, Indirect Bribery, Multiple Counts of Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and
Accessories at DOJ with Independent Pieces of Evidence as attachments submitted to
OCA

12. Loafing during office hours

Proof: Subpoenas the court personnel of RTC

Court Employee F

1. Unauthorized absence on May 14, 2010

2. Unauthorized absences on August 8, 2010 and August 17, 2010

Proofs: Courts calendars and orders for May 14, 2011, August 8, 2010, August 17,
2010 submitted to OCA

3. Making and submitting intentional or unintentional wrong or false contents of

courts orders for signing

Proofs: Various courts orders submitted to OCA. These submitted proofs consisting of
orders are due for signing not mere drafts contrary to the findings of the Office of the
Court Administrator

4. Receiving P2,000 to P5,000 stenographers fees

5. Failure to pay the unremitted legal fees to JDF (stenographers fees)

6. Failure to comply with memorandum dated October 19, 2010 on refund of

unremitted legal fees

7. Failure to comply with various orders to attach the receipts of paid legal fees

8. Failure to refund plaintiff banks

9. Filing false complaints under oath based on threats and harassment against
Judge for reporting graft and corruption

Proofs: Complaint for Theft, Illegal Exactions, Violation of RA No. 3019, Violation of RA
No. 6173, Indirect Bribery, Multiple Counts of Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and

7
Accessories in NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-13A-00027 at DOJ with Independent Pieces of
Evidence as attachments submitted to OCA

10. Loafing during office hours

Proof: Subpoenas the court personnel of RTC

Court Employee G

1. Non-service or delayed service of orders, writs and processes of the court

2. 6 months delay in the implementation of the writ of execution in civil case no.
SCC-678

Proofs: Courts orders and memoranda, Computer Print Out for Civil Case Docket
Inventory for December 2010 originally submitted to OCA, Judicial Audit Report
Conducted on February 2 and 3, 2011

3. Making of false Certificate of Sale in Prada vs. Prada in civil case no. 123

Proofs: The orders and papers attached to the records of Prada vs. Prada in civil case
123 submitted to OCA; the TSN of the contempt proceedings that stenographers
refused, upon repeated oral and written demand, to give copies to court to submit to
OCA
Cited in contempt of court in Prada vs. Prada

4. Receiving P5,000.00 from plaintiff bank in replevin case during the ex parte
reception of evidence

5. Failure to comply with memorandum dated October 19, 2010 on unremitted legal
fees

6. Failure to refund plaintiff banks

7. Filing false complaints under oath based on threats and harassment against
Judge for reporting graft and corruption

Proofs: Complaint for Theft, Illegal Exactions, Violation of RA No. 3019, Violation of RA
No. 6173, Indirect Bribery, Multiple Counts of Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and
Accessories at DOJ with Independent Pieces of Evidence as attachments submitted to
OCA

8
Court Employee H

1. Non-service or delayed service of orders, writs and processes of the court

Proofs: Courts orders and memoranda, Computer Print Out for Civil Case Docket
Inventory for December 2010 originally submitted to OCA, Judicial Audit Report
Conducted on February 2 and 3, 2011

2. Receiving P5,000.00 from plaintiff bank in replevin case during the ex parte
reception of evidence

3. Failure to comply with memorandum dated October 19, 2011 on unremitted legal
fees

4. Failure to refund plaintiff banks

5. Filing false complaints under oath based on threats and harassment against their
Judge for reporting graft and corruption

Proofs: Complaint for Theft, Illegal Exactions, Violation of RA No. 3019, Violation of RA
No. 6173, Indirect Bribery, Multiple Counts of Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and
Accessories at DOJ with Independent Pieces of Evidence as attachments submitted to
OCA

Court employees E and F as stenographers connived with each other to make

untruthful orders as shown by the following:

1. The stenographers wrote the word DRAFT on the orders if these are not due for
signing. The submitted proofs showed the absence of the word DRAFT therefore these
orders are due for signing already not drafts(See Annexes "A" and "B" with highlighted
neon color on word DRAFT written by stenographers);

2. The stenographers did not present any proof that the numerous and various
orders are drafts;

3. The orders submitted as proofs to OCA are not drafts because there are
elements of numerous and repetitiousness despite of warning to follow the corrected
drafts where the word DRAFT appear on the orders;

4. The orders submitted as proofs to OCA contain words or figures that vary with
the patterned pleadings and papers submitted by the parties and vary with the words
dictated in open court that should not occur because of the length of the service of the
stenographers and repeated warnings for them not to do such intentional and
unintentional wrong or false orders to the damage of our court if signed because it

9
would give the false impression about the judge as negligent in signing wrong orders or
false orders;

5. The stenographers' draft orders contained intentionally wrong or false information

thus these were submitted to the OCA to prove their propensity to write intentionally
wrong or false information; and

6.. The stenographers use the red inks when writing the word DRAFT on the orders
upon the receipt of the complaint A against them signifying bloodshed for complaining
them to OCA.

Some of these proofs were submitted to the OCA are marked as Annexes "A" to
"00000". Under Section 52(A)(16), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, inefficiency and incompetence in the
performance of official duties is considered a grave offense with the corresponding
penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year of suspension.

The computer print outs for Civil Case Docket Inventory for December 2010 originally
submitted to OCA bore the signature of the Presiding Judge with the signature of a
public prosecutor in the Jurat portion, the receiving copy of this Civil Case Docket
Inventory for December 2010 was given to the judicial audit team on February 2, 2011.

The computer print outs for Civil Case Docket Inventory for-December 2010 showed in
the Remarks portion on the non-service of summons by the sheriffs, court employees
G and H were highlighted in neon (totaling to more or less 128 cases) marked as
Annexes "A" to "HH" were submitted to OCA. Once issued by the clerk of court, it
is the duty of the sheriff, process server or any other person serving court processes to
serve the summons to the defendant efficiently and expeditiously. Failure to do so
constitutes simple neglect of duty, which is the failure of an employee to give one's
attention to a task expected of him, and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from
carelessness or indifference ( Atty. Cabigao vs. Sheriff Neri, METC Branch 30,
Manila, A.M. No. P-13-3153, October 14, 2013; Atty. Laguio, Jr. vs. Amante-
Casicas , 537 Phil. 180, 185 (2006); Dr. Dignum vs. Diamla , 522 Phil. 369, 378
(2006); Collado-Lacorte vs. Rabena , A.M. No. P-09-2665, August 4, 2009, 595
SCRA 15, 22).

Under Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service, simple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense, punishable by
suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first
offense. However because the total number of non-service or delayed service of
summons by two sheriffs totaled to more or less 128 cases, their administrative
offenses are Gross Neglect of Duty.

Court employees B, E and F have unauthorized absences without leave. In Re:

Dropping from the Rolls of Cornelio Reniette Cabrera, et al. , A.M. No. P -11-2946,

10
July 13, 2011, it was held : "By going on AWOL, Cabrera grossly disregarded and
neglected the duties of his office. He failed to adhere to the high standards of public
accountability imposed on all those in government service."

In the letter dated February 1, 2014, sheriff , court employee G made a false
Certificate of Sale in Prada vs. Prada, civil case no. 123 (See Rejoinder with Motion
marked as Annexes "A" to "J"). In Padua vs. Paz, A.M. No. P-00-1445, April 30, 2003,
402 SCRA 21, the Supreme Court found respondent sheriff liable for grave misconduct
and falsification of public document and, accordingly, dismissed him from the service
when the latter committed perjury and gave false testimony. In the present case,
respondent's act of conducting a public auction sale, which amounted to grave
misconduct, and his falsification of the Certificate of Sale and the Minutes of Auction
Sale are in flagrant disregard of the law and deserve the supreme penalty of dismissal
(Go vs. Sheriff Costelo Jr., A.M. No. P-08-2450, June 10, 2009).

The dismissal of the complaint for Libel for issuing memoranda to them on unremitted
legal fees and refund against complainant A filed by stenographers, court employees
E and Fs and sheriff court employee G at the Department of Justice (DOJ) make
them criminally liable for multiple counts of Perjury and Malicious Prosecution which in
turn are considered as administrative offenses for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct in
addition to the violation of the provisions on integrity and propriety in the Code of
Conduct of Court Personnel on their part.

With respect to court employee Bs false allegation, the attending physician was called
up over the phone in her clinic in M City on the same day the notarized medical
certificate was submitted by court employee D to the court. The attending physician
said she did not notarize or caused to notarize the medical certificate submitted on the
same day. It is illogical that the attending physician in M City will go to P City to notarize
the medical certificate in the same day of submission as falsely alleged by court
employees B and D.

Court employee B was designated to prepare civil case and criminal case inventories
in Memorandum marked as Annex "D" to support the complainant's allegation that she
failed to make the monthly report of cases previously assigned to another court staff
due to her 'unauthorized absences.

On court employee Ds unsatisfactory explanation in the placing of kitchen knife, what

is used in cutting the tie for court records is a pair of scissors not a knife thus her
intention of placing a kitchen knife in Judges plain view on the table across the
chambers' door is to threaten her for trying to recover the unremitted legal fees which

11
she is a respondent, being a participant of their illegal transactions. Her actuation
showed lack of respect to their Judge.

All the court employees were reported to have uttered unsavory remarks to complainant
A as evidenced by Memorandum. Respondent committed misconduct when he
verbally abused his co-employees and appeared at his place of work drunk. A simple
misconduct is a less grave offense punishable by suspension for the first offense, but
only from one month and one day to six months (Bajar vs. Baterisna, A.M. No. P-06-
2151, August 28, 2006).

There were allegations in the complaint of complainant A that have been

uncontroverted by the named court employees, these do not require proofs.

The non-attachment of pleadings motions and other papers in court's records by the
above-named court employees C and D constituted Simple Neglect of Duty. Under
Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
simple neglect of duty is classified as a less grave offense, punishable by suspension
without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. The
repetitious non-compliance of the court's lawful orders by the above-named court
employees constituted Gross Insubordination. Under Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, gross insubordination is a grave
offense punishable by suspension (from six months and one day to one year) for the
first offense.

The non-compliance of the Memoranda issued by complainant A to stenographers

court employees E and F on the unremitted legal fees as well as the non-compliance
of another memorandum issued by the same complainant to the sheriffs who are court
employees G and H in addition to their non-compliance of the court's various orders
of the unremitted legal fees that were attached to complaint despite receipt of the
copies of the same by them constitute Gross Insubordination and Gross Discourtesy in
the Performance of Official Duties. Under Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, gross insubordination is a grave offense
punishable by suspension (from six months and one day to one year) for the first
offense. Under the Civil Service Rules, gross discourtesy in the performance of official
duties is a less grave offense punishable with suspension from one month and one day
to six months.

In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence is required to warrant

disciplinary sanctions. Substantial evidence is defined as relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Thus, after much
consideration of the facts and circumstances, while the Court has not shied away in
imposing the strictest penalty to erring employees, neither can it think and rule

12
unreasonably in determining whether an employee deserves disciplinary sanction (Re:
Anonymous Complaint against Ms. Hermogena F. Bayani for Dishonesty, A.M.
No. 2007-22-SC. February 1, 2011). It is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by
clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law
because denial cannot prevail over the positive, candid and categorical testimony of the
complainant, and as between the positive declaration of the complainant and the
negative statement of the appellant, the former deserves more credence (People vs.
Mangune, G.R. No. 186463, November 14, 2012).

At the DOJ, court employees E and F were charged with fifty six (56) counts of
Theft punishable under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code in conspiracy with each
other who stole the payment of fifty-six (56) replevin cases of not more than Fifty Pesos
(P50) each to the damage of the Supreme Court because the stolen money should go
to the Judiciary Development fund. These fifty-six (56) replevin cases are listed in the
handwritten recording of court employee C of the transactions of court employees E,
F, G and H involving the stenographers fees and sheriffs fees. They committed
Theft from various dates sometime in September, 2009 to April, 2010 in P City. They
made partial late payments of the stenographers fees on May 31, 2010 as evidenced
by various receipts attached to their letter dated June 1, 2010 addressed to complainant
A in compliance with Judge As directive to submit the official receipts in Replevin
cases. They did not pay the remaining unpaid stenographers fees despite repeated
demand from them. Restitution of stolen money does not exculpate them from the
criminal charge of Theft.

Fifty-six counts (56) of Illegal Exactions were committed by court employees E and F
in conspiracy with each other while thirty-seven (37) counts of Illegal Exactions were
committed by court employee G and eighteen (18) counts of Illegal Exactions were
committed by court employee H for various dates from sometime in September, 2009
to April, 2010 in P City as evidenced by the San Miguels List that witnesses can explain
its contents because they have personal knowledge of their transactions as to what they
have seen, heard and observed in the court of their receipt of stenographers fees and
sheriffs fees. During the April 8, 2010 meeting when Judge learned of the illegality of
their transactions on March 29, 2010 at RTC Branch 444, V City, Judge demanded
receipts from court employees E, F, G and H of their stenographers fees and
sheriffs fees to submit to the Office of the Court Administrator but they failed to do so.
Failure to issue official receipts of the money they collected from the litigants in the
involved replevin cases constitute Illegal Exactions punishable under Article 213 of the
Revised Penal Code.

Court employees E, F, G and H committed multiple counts of violation of RA No.

3019 ( The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Section 3 (b) and Section 3 (e) as well
as violation of RA No. 6173 (d) for various dates in September, 2009 to April, 2010 in P
City as evidenced by the San Miguels List bolstered by the fact that when upon receipt

13
of the Memorandum dated October 19, 2010 issued by Officer-in-Charge A to refund
the amount paid in excess for their stenographers fees and sheriffs fees if they cannot
provide the court their legal basis of receipt of the same, they refused to do so and
instead denied having received the same despite the existence of authentic recordings
of their transactions evidenced by San Miguel list, keeping the money for themselves. In
the same manner that Indirect Bribery punishable by Article 211 of the Revised Penal
Code was committed by them when the litigants involved in the San Miguels List did not
claim for a refund of the money paid in excess to them upon receipt of the
Memorandum dated October 19, 2010 issued by Officer-in-Charge A because court
employees are not allowed to receive any monetary considerations for the services to
the courts litigants thus graft and corruption were committed by them.

Moreover, some of the lawyers and representatives of the plaintiff banks in replevin
cases said to the court that the exorbitant amount of money in the stenographers fees
and sheriffs fees given to them will make the work of court employees E, F, G and
H faster, giving them special privileges and better services in court that clearly meant
they are engaging in graft and corruption practices to court employees. The non-refund
of the overpaid stenographers fees and sheriffs fees despite the receipt of the
Memorandum dated October 19, 2010 and kept these money for personal use by court
employees E, F, G and H showed violation off RA No. 3019 ( The Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act), Section 3 (b) and Section 3 (e) as well as violation of RA No.
6173 (d) and Indirect Bribery (Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code) because they are
disallowed to receive monetary compensation for their work as court employees.
Moreover, there are complaints of the sheriffs delayed implementation of the writs and
poor service from poor litigants as evidenced by memoranda issued to them and judicial
audit to prove giving unwarranted benefits to party-litigants in replevin cases.

Court employees E, F, G and H and their cohorts committed multiple counts of

Perjury in executing under oath multiple complaints that are false under oath against
their Judge at OCA and Officer-in-Charge at the DOJ. The independent pieces of
evidence against them are more or less four hundred (400) documentary proofs to
prove their commission of Perjury.

Court employees B, C and D committed the crimes of Accessories under Article 19

of the Revised Penal Code of the crimes of multiple counts of Theft, Illegal Exactions,
violation of f RA No. 3019 ( The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Section 3 (b) and
Section 3 (e), violation of RA No. 6173 (d) and Indirect Bribery (Article 211 of the
Revised Penal Code) committed by Court employees E, F, G and H when they,
without having participated as principals or accomplices, took part of the offenses after
their commission concealed their crimes upon knowledge of the same during the
meeting upon the discovery of these illegal transactions when they were told to help in
the refund processes because they received a portion of the illegal transactions of the
stenographers fees and sheriffs fees in various dates in P City. To prevent the

14
discovery of the crimes of court employees E, F, G and H, what court employees
B, C and D did, who profited from these illegal transactions executed a perjured
Complaint-Affidavit against their Judge that their court has no evidence against court
employees E, F, G and H, which is false assertion; court employees B, C and
D who profited from these illegal transactions concealed these crimes when they
executed their affidavits before OCA that concealed their crimes that they have
knowledge of because they are material witnesses of these illegal transactions. During
meeting, when after these illegal transactions were discovered, Judge A told them that
the first goal of the court is to recover all the unremitted legal fees, the second goal of
the court is for them to refund these illegal fees to the plaintiff banks and the last goal is
for the stenographers and sheriffs to tell truthfully to the Office of the Court
Administrator that it is a common practice (Kalakaran na ito dito). In telling the truth,
they will be able to attain mitigating circumstances and judicial leniency. They will be
given another chance to reform and to keep their jobs in the judiciary. But what they did
is to file numerous false and malicious complaints against Judge A to prove their
malice, harassment and oppression to eliminate her as a State witness against them.
During the investigation after the discovery of these illegal fees, it was found out that
these illegal transactions happened for a long time during Judge F.S. time, the boss of
court employees B, C, D, E, F, G and H including court employees X and
XX detailed to other office due to falsification of courts minutes, among others, who
was dismissed from service for graft and corruption in 2002 per judicial records.

The Supreme Court dismissed the foregoing administrative charges of seventy (70)
court personnel against Judge A for lack of substantiation.

The actual case is OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ Eleanor Bayog, LeilaniTejero - Lopez,
Manolo Garcia, Jasmine Lindain, Fetronillo Primacio Jr., EvelynDepalobos, Benjie
Ore, Erwin Russ Ragasa, Bien Camba, Marlon Suligan, ArnoldObial, Ronald
Quijano, Eduardo Ebreo, Chanda Tolentino, Ronalyn Armarvez, Ma.Victoria
Ocampo, Elizabeth Lipura, Maryann Cayanan, Ma. Luz Dionisio, Maribel Molina,
Edward Eric Santos, Emilio Domine, Ferdinand Molina, Ricardo Lampitoc,Jerome
Aviles, Ana Lea Estacio, Cristina l.ampitoc, Melanie Ragasa, EvangelineChing,
Lawrence Perez, Edmundo Vergara, Lanie Aguinaldo, Karla MaePacunayen,
Domingo Hocosol, Edwin Ubana, Elizabeth Villanueva, lgnacioGonzales, Zenaida
Geronimo, Soledad Bassig, Marvin Balicuatro, Aida Josefinalgnacio, Benigno
Marzan, Marissa Mashoor Ratsgoor, Marie Luz Obida, JosephPamatpat, Fortunato
Diezmo, Norner Villanueva, Edwin Jurok, Fatima Rojas, Armina Almonte, Anna
Marie Francisco, Ma. Cecilia Getrudes Salvador, ZenaidaGeronimo, Virginia Galang,
Elsa Garnett, Amor Abad, Emelina San Miguel, MaximaSayo, Romer Aviles, Froilan
Robert Tomas, Norman Garcia, Dennis Echegoyen vs.Judge Eliza B. Yu

The Philippine Supreme Court and the Office of the Court Administrator sustained
the legal arguments of Judge Eliza B. Yu.

15