OPPRESSION BY ONE OR OPPRESSION BY MANY?

Four Judges and seventy court employees accused Judge A with Oppression by
setting a bad and demoralizing image to others because of her oppressiveness to
employees. They alleged that upon her assumption to the office, Judge A started to
terrorize her employees by filing baseless complaints against two of them, court
employees B and C, and by threatening other staffs that if they will not succumb to
her dictatorship she will file an administrative case against them. Ones sensibilities are
easily assaulted by this extremely unorthodox behavior of Judge A. Upon the request
of Judge A herself, the Office of the Executive Judge took the cudgels to acts upon
Judge A complaint against her erring court employees. Four Judges agreed to inquire
before Judge A as to the nature of her complaint viz-a-viz the complaint of court
employees B and C against Judge A, in order to determine the applicability of
Employees Grievance Committee under OCA Circular No. 00-111000. Judge A
refused to enter into compromise with administrative cases of court employees B and
C because their offenses are grave offenses, her memorandum was submitted already
to Court Administrator D for an action.

Did Judge A commit Oppression in reporting the wrongdoing of court employees B

and C to the Office of the Court Administrator? The answer in the negative.

Judge As refusal to talk about the complaints involving court employees B and C
was because of the previous referral of the same complaints to the Office of the Court
Administrator prior to the receipt of the memorandum of Executive Judge X. If the
intention is to settle the cases, Judge A will not do it because it will constitute as
Obstruction of Justice that is highly unethical. Crimes involving the public interest
cannot be compromised.

Despite of Judge As decline of the invitation by Executive Judge X, the four Judges
went inside the chambers of Judge A. Executive Judge X explained about the
dialogue, and Judge As reply was that she merely did my job. Dialogue connotes
settlement of a quarrel. There was no quarrel. There were grave offenses committed by
court employees B and C which they should not cover up. Otherwise, it will set a bad
example for others to follow, that it is alright to commit violation of the laws with impunity
and show disrespect to a judge because they remained scot free despite of their serious
offenses. The court employees B and C committed serious offenses of falsification,
dishonesty, grave misconduct, among others, thus they must face the consequences of

1
their unlawful actions. Vice Executive XX attempted to settle the matter, starting that
they are like family and they should not bring this matter outside. Judge A told him that
if these erring court employees B and C treated her as their family member, they
should not have committed the serious offenses that will put her in risk of losing her job
because of their several illegal activities.

None of the four Judges explained to Judge A that the dialogue is about OCA Circular
No. 00-111000 that is a mere ploy to compromise crimes involving the erring court
employees B and C. It is unethical for four Judges to misquote Judge A in their
petition for transfer with prayer for dismissal against the latter based on false charges.
They should have transcribed all Judge As words and present them to the Office of the
Court Administrator to prove that she is not keen on settlement of administrative cases
involving grave offenses as part of her oath of office as a judge. Instead, they put Judge
A in bad light by falsely depicting her as a bad judge, to quote them in their false and
malicious complaint: Upon her assumption to the office, Judge A started to terrorize
her employees by filing baseless complaints against two of them and by threatening
other staffs that if they will not succumb to her dictatorship she will file an administrative
case against them. Ones sensibilities are easily assaulted by this extremely unorthodox
behavior of Judge A. According to Judge A, these statements are inconsistent with
the letter dated August 13, 2010 by Executive Judge X transmitting for appropriate
action Judge A memoranda against them as well as their respective comment thereto
without him stating therein that: Upon her assumption to the office, Judge A started to
terrorize her employees by filing baseless complaints against two of them and by
threatening other staffs that if they will not succumb to her dictatorship she will file an
administrative case against them. Ones sensibilities are easily assaulted by this
extremely unorthodox behavior of Judge A.

Not once did Judge A receive a letter from the Office of the Executive Judge that her
complaints against court employees B and C are baseless therefor there is no need
to transmit them to the Office of the Court Administrator D.

Also, Executive Judge X did not dismiss Judge As complaints in the memoranda
against court employees B and C. His action of transmitting Judge As complaints
against them to the Office of the Court Administrator is contradictory with his false and
self-serving statement that Judge A filed the baseless complaints against them. He
indorsed another complaints against court employee C in his letter. In this letter of
transmittal, Executive Judge X did not say: Upon her assumption to the office, Judge A
started to terrorize her employees by filing baseless complaints against two of them and
by threatening other staffs that if they will not succumb to her dictatorship she will file an

2
administrative case against them. Ones sensibilities are easily assaulted by this
extremely unorthodox behavior of Judge A.

Judge A does not know of any complaint by court employees C and D against her.
Four Judges lied when they alleged: Upon the request of Judge A herself, the Office of
the Executive Judge took the cudgels to acts upon Judge As complaint against her
employees. Four Judges agreed to inquire before Judge A as to the nature of her
complaint viz-a-viz the complaint of court employees B and C against Judge A, in
order to determine the applicability of Employees Grievance Committee under OCA
Circular No. 00-111000. These statements by four Judges are untruthful and self-
serving because these are not found in the memorandum of Executive Judge X. When
court employees B and C requested for detail, there was no mention of any
complaint against Judge A by them. They left hurriedly in Judge As court. None of
these letters for transfer by court employees B and C stated that there were
complaints by them against Judge A. Thus, the above-mentioned allegations are
fabrication and after-thoughts by Executive Judge X and three Judges against Judge
A. The Office of the Executive Judge will not agree with the approved requests for
detail by court employees B and C if he believed they are innocent who should not
flee from the scene of the crimes that they committed.

The submitted documentary evidence of the administrative case against court

employees B and C were marked from A to XX. There were fifty (50) pieces of
documentary evidence against them contrary to the perjured allegations of seventy-four
complainants that Judge As complaints against them are baseless. Four Judges and
seventy court employees willfully and deliberately lied under oath, not only in this
particular complaint but also with their other complaints against Judge A.

Judge As memorandum stated the preparation of untruthful Constancia of court

employee B, contrary to her explanation, it was she together with the stenographer
who prepared the falsified court's minutes. The court's minutes with handwritten wrote
Judge As name in computer and printed it out PRESENT: JUDGE A, court employee
B in cahoots with a stenographer made it appear that Judge A was present of the
hearing of the motion of the case of Voltes et al., Civil Case No. 0-123, that was reset
on April 12, 2010 which is false because they all knew that Judge A attended a
seminar. Judge As attendance in the seminar is known to them. Intentional writing of
presence of a Judge who is not around and writing the wrong date with action by court
employee B is dishonesty because Judge A will be prejudiced if she signed a false
order prepared by court employee B. It cannot be a mere inadvertence to merit the
charges of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties under
Rule IV, Section 52, paragraph A(16) of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum

3
Circular No. 19-99 ( See OCA vs. Judge Dilag et al., A.M. No. RTJ-11-2293, August 16,
2011 ) but it is dishonesty defined as any act which shows lack of integrity or a
disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive or betray; It consists of an intent to violate the
truth, in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of his
duties (See OCA vs. Angeles, et al. , A.M. No. P-11-2887 /A.M. No. P-10-2880, January
18, 2011) to prepare deliberately the falsified minutes stating Judge As presence in a
trial and making a courts action without her knowledge is unethical.

This dishonest act was committed again by court employee B in the case of Asiong et
al. Case No. 234, by making it appear that Judge A was present in a hearing which is
not true. Likewise, court employee B made it appear that Judge A issued the orders
that are written in the said minutes which are falsified entries, unknown to the plaintiff
who signed it, that the act court employee B is dishonest and irregular who usurped
the powers of Judge A who should be the one giving lawful orders in open court. It
was she who wrote the false entries in the minutes. Court employee B did not write in
the falsified minutes that the presiding judge was absent in the presence of the litigant
that will be reflected in the order, another proof of bad faith. In Administrative Case for
Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document against NOEL V. LUNA, SC Chief
Judicial Staff Officer, SPPE Division, MISO, A.M. No. 2003-7-SC, 18 December 2003,
"For having twice misrepresented in his Personal Data Sheets that he was a college
graduate when in reality he was not, we are constrained to hold respondent liable for
dishonesty by misrepresentation and falsification of a public document." Also, court
employee B irregular conduct continued after being scolded in the Asiong et al. case
pertaining to the falsified court minutes when, despite prohibition during our group
meeting, she called up a case in BMW et al., Civil Case no. M-PSY-00- 001 in open
court when it was not calendared on the day of hearing, where the plaintiffs counsel
appeared and argued orally in open court about a case Judge A is not aware of, and
did not see the case records putting Judge A in an embarrassing situation because
Judge A did not know what order to issue. Court employee B invoked again good
faith which she cannot avail of because at the time Atty. V showed his pleading and
questioned why his motion was not calendared as per her letter explanation, she should
have informed Judge A about the Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration before the start
of the trial, she did not do it, rather, she called up the case that was not calendared in
bad faith to make Judge A appear foolish because she does not know what the case is
all about in open court creating a bad impression of her as a judge who does not read
cases to the prejudice of the good image of the judiciary.

Court employee C committed the same act of dishonesty of court employee B about
the court minutes with falsified entries despite prohibition orally and in writing, made
known to them in a group meeting. Court employee C usurped judicial functions by
writing in the court minutes of the case Gelario et al., Case No. M-01-01:

4
"Defs. given 10 days to comment to pet's, motion, after w/c submitted for resolution"

Court employee C made it appear that there was a hearing of the motion on June13,
2010 attended by plaintiffs counsel Atty. J and defendants' counsel Atty. K in Judge
As presence which is false. She made it appear that Judge A was the one as the
judge who issued the lawful order in court on June 13, 2010 which is untrue because it
was an inventory day. Likewise, she wrote the false entries in the minutes which is the
task of the stenographer who is present in that day. She arrogated the duties and
functions of a judge and a stenographer that is highly unethical conduct. In doing so,
she committed dishonest conduct, because it would appear to those who are not
present in that there was hearing day on June 13, 2010 which is false. For example,
with the court minutes, the litigants will be compelled to pay the attorney's fees to their
respective counsel for their attendance of the hearing when in truth and in fact, there
was none to their damage and prejudice. This also will damage and prejudice Judge
As court because if any of the parties learned that there was no hearing of that day, it
means that their court is a part of that dishonesty for monetary consideration, as if there
is a percentage given to the court staff in giving falsified court minutes for the purpose
of, say collection of attorney's fees. This dishonest conduct will reflect unfairly to the
public that Judge As court is dishonest especially if it will tolerate such unethical
conduct.

Court employee C admitted that there was an order dated June 13, 2010 by the court
giving the defendants ten (10) days to comment thus she should have given the
counsels copies of the order dated June 7, 2010 instead of giving them copies of the
falsified court minutes dated June 13, 2010 when they knew that hearing cannot be
made because it was an inventory day as well as the fact that Judge A was not
informed at all by court employee C before writing the minutes like what court
employee B did , both of them did not obtain prior permission, consent and authority
from Judge A to do it, proving bad faith on the part of court employee C.

Not contented, court employee C repeated the making of falsified court minutes dated
June 13, 2010 in Continental et al., Case no. 06-06 by making it appear that there was
hearing of the motion in Judge As court where Judge A attended in the presence of
plaintiffs counsel Atty. M and the defendant, and it was Judge A who declared that it
was inventory week without stating when will the case be set for hearing, and this is
untrue.

In both instances, Judge A was present in court. Judge A was inside the chambers
stamping the case records during the physical inventory of cases in the same day of

5
June 13, 2010. Court employee C did not bother to go inside judge As chambers and
ask for permission of what she will do and she did not ask the parties to go directly to
Judge A for inquiries of their cases, proofs of bad faith on her part. She is also
dishonest to the litigants because they were made to believe of the conduct of the
hearings on June 13, 2010 when there were no corresponding orders issued by Judge
As court to them that will prove irregularity by court employee C who disobeyed the
court's express prohibition not to do it. The prohibition not to falsify the court minutes
was made several times to them, orally and in writing.

Falsification is defined in the dictionaries as any evidence that helps to establish the
falsity of something; a willful perversion of facts; misrepresentation; the act of distorting
something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean; the deliberate
act of deviating from the truth; the act of deceiving; the act of rendering something false
as by fraudulent changes (of documents or measures etc.) or counterfeiting; falsehood;
knavery; dishonesty; lack of honesty; acts of lying or cheating or stealing; an act that
incriminates someone on a false charge; falsification by the use of sophistry; misleading
by means of specious fallacies; criminal falsification by making or altering an instrument
with intent to defraud; the act of determining that something is false. These definitions
are exemplified by court employees B and C in their dishonest conduct and
actuations as narrated herein.

Court employees B and C violated Canon IV, Section 3, AM No. 03-06-13-SC that:
Court personnel shall not alter, falsify, destroy or mutilate any record within their control.
Under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code: Falsification by public officer, employee
or notary or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to
exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary
who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any
of the following acts: 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when
they did not in fact so participate; 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an
act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; 4. Making
untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 5. Altering true dates; 6. Making any
alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning; 7. Issuing
in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document
when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or
different from, that of the genuine original; or 8. Intercalating any instrument or note
relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book. In writing the
falsified court minutes, making it appear that judge A was present in the hearings
when she is not, court employees B and C committed falsification punishable by our
penal code. In Goma et al. vs. CA et al., G.R. No. 168437, January 8, 2009, the

6
elements of this type of crime of falsification of public documents are: 1. That the
offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; 2. That he takes advantage of
his official position; 3. That he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons
have participated in any act or proceeding; and 4. That such person or persons did not
in fact so participate in the proceeding. Court employees B and C caused it to appear
that Judge A participated in the proceeding of the hearing of the motion in different
dates when Judge A did not in fact so participate. In Dabu vs. Roden et al., A.M. No.
RTJ-00-1600 and A.M. No. 01-3-138-RTC, February 1, 2011: Respondent court
personnel, in apparent collusion with the presiding judge of their court (who passed
away before the case was decided), falsified court records and made it appear that a
public prosecutor appeared during the supposed hearings of a number of cases for
annulment of marriage, when, in truth, the prosecutors who supposedly appeared were
either on leave or had already been re-assigned to another station. Falsification of an
official document such as court records is considered a grave offense. Court
employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, being public servants in an
office dispensing justice, should always act with a high degree of professionalism and
responsibility. Their conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum,
but must also be in accordance with the law and court regulations. No position demands
greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than an office in the
judiciary. Court employees should be models of uprightness, fairness and honesty to
maintain the people's respect and faith in the judiciary. They should avoid any act or
conduct that would diminish public trust and confidence in the courts. Indeed, those
connected with dispensing justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility. Falsification of
an official document such as court records is considered a grave offense. It also
amounts to dishonesty. Under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Administrative Code of 1987,
dishonesty (par. a) and falsification (par. f) are considered grave offenses warranting
the penalty of dismissal from service upon commission of the first offense. Furthermore,
falsification of an official document is punishable as a criminal offense under Article 171
of the Revised Penal Code and dishonesty is an impious act that has no place in the
judiciary. Like any public servant, he must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and
integrity not only in the performance of his official duties but in his personal and private
dealings with other people, to preserve the courts good name and standing (Lauro vs.
Lauro, A.M. No. P91-642, 6 June 2001, 358 SCRA 405, 409-410). It cannot be
overstressed that the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and
otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its
personnel (CSC vs. Sta. Ana, A.M. No. P-03-1696, 30 April 2003, p. 10). Court
personnel have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and
decency in their professional and private conduct in order to preserve the good name
and integrity of the courts of justice (CSC vs. Sta. Ana, A.M. No. P-03-1696, 30 April
2003, p. 10). Respondent in this case failed to meet the stringent standards set for a
judicial employee; hence, he does not deserve to remain in the office staff of the
judiciary (A.M. No. 20037-SC: December 15, 2003). The act of Dishonesty, which is a
grave offense is punishable with dismissal by first offense under Section 23 and 26,

7
Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO 29227 and other Pertinent
Civil Service Laws."

The actual case is OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ Judge Bibiano Colasito, Vice Executive
Judge Bonifacio Pascua, Judge Restituto Mangalindan Jr. , Judge Catherine Manodon,
Miguel Infante, Emma Annie Arafiles, Racquel Diano, Pedro Doctolero Jr., Lydia Casas,
Auxencio Clemente, Ma. Cecilia Gertrudes R. Salvador, Zenaida N. Geronimo, Virginia
D. Galang, Elsa Garnet, Amor Abad, Emelina J. San Miguel, Maxima C. Sayo, Romer
H. Aviles, Froilan Robert L. Tomas, Dennis M. Echegoyen, Norman Garcia, Noel Labid,
Eleanor N. Bayog, Leilani A. Tejero Lopez, Ana Maria V. Francisco, Soledad J.
Bassig, Marissa Mashhoor Rastgooy, Marie Luz M. Obida, Evelyn P. Depalobos,
Joseph B. Pamatmat, Zenaida N. Geronimo, Benjie V. Ore, Fortunato E. Diezmo,
Nomer B. Villanueva, Edwina A. Jurok, Fatima V. Rojas, Eduardo E. Ebreo, Ronalyn T.
Almarvez, Ma. Victoria C. Ocampo, Elizabeth Lipura, Mary Ann J. Cayanan, Manolo
Manuel E. Garcia, Petronilo C. Primacio Jr., Edward Eric Santos, Armina B. Almonte,
Elizabeth G. Villanueva, Erwin Russ B. Ragasa, Bien T. Camba, Marlon M. Suligan,
Chanda B. Tolentino, Ferdinand R. Molina, Lanie F. Aguinaldo, Jasmine L. Lindain,
Emilio P. Domine, Arnold P. Obial, Ricardo E. Lampitoc, Jerome H. Aviles, Ana Lea M.
Estacio, Cristina E. Lampitoc, Melanie DC Begasa, Evangeline M. Ching, Karla Mae
Pacunayen, Ronaldo S. Quijano, Domingo H. Hocosol, Edwin P. Ubana, Marvin O.
Balicuatro, Ma. Luz D. Dionisio, Maribel A. Molina, Sevilla B. Del Castillo, Aida Josefina
Ignacio, Benigno A. Marzan, Ignacio Gonzales, Lawrence D. Perez, and Edmundo
Vergara vs. Judge Eliza B. Yu
The Philippine Supreme Court sustained the legal arguments of Judge Eliza B. Yu.