EN BANC 3.

A week later, respondent judge scolded her for allegedly always being out of
the office, with an embarrassing reminder that the government pays her salary.
A.M.-RTJ-07-2068 August 7, 2007
(Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1854-RTJ) 4. In a day in January 2003, respondent judge entered the staff room where her
co-workers were eating and, there and then, the former asked if she can go
ERLIND A. ALCUIZAR, complainant, inside the CR so he could kiss her.
vs.
JUDGE EMMANUEL C. CARPIO, ATTY. CRISOSTOMO S.J. UGALI, JR, and MRS. 5. There were instances when respondent judge would touch her legs and give
DIVINAGRACIA BARCELONA, respondents. her a wink.

RESOLUTION 6. On February 6, 2003, respondent judge again berated her for always being
out. The reproach upset her and brought her to tears. The following day, she did
GARCIA, J.: not report for work. On February 11, 2003, she went to the office to type a letter
for transfer and to accomplish an application for a two-month leave.
Four protagonists, all working in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 16,
are involved in this administrative case which started when Court Stenographer Erlind A. 7. There were times when respondent judge would place his gun on top of her
Alcuizar filed a verified Complaint Affidavit1 dated September 2, 2003 against Presiding table which would give her a scare.
Judge Emmanuel C. Carpio, Atty. Crisostomo S. J. Ugali Jr., Branch Clerk of Court, and
Mrs. Divinagracia B. Barcelona, Clerk III. Complainant Erlind "Neneng" Alcuizar charges 8. The harassment she was subjected to impelled her to confide and seek solace
them with different offenses – respondent judge for sexual harassment, while from co-employees and other judges and forced her to request transfer of
respondents Ugali and Barcelona for misconduct. assignment and to go on leave. She also did talk to and ask permission from
respondent judge to transfer.
Against respondent judge, complainant, in her complaint-affidavit, alleged, in gist, the
following: 9. On April 11, 2003, she entered respondent judge’s chamber to ask for a
clearance – which was granted - and permission to transfer which the respondent
1. On the occasion of her birthday on August 29, 2002, while inside the comfort judge agreed to act on when he shall have talked to Atty. Ugali. A week after, she
room (CR) washing a dishware, she was kissed by respondent judge, despite her reiterated her request for transfer; and
earlier protestation for him not to pursue his intention. The CR is inside the
judge’s chamber. After the kissing incident, respondent judge slipped a P500-bill 10. She received on June 4, 2003 a memorandum in which respondent judge
inside her pocket which she later used to buy food for officemates after asked her to report for work on or before June 9, 2003 or be declared AWOL.
respondent judge refused her offer to return what he insisted was a gift.
Appended to and forming part of the sworn complaint are letters complainant wrote to
2. Sometime in October 2002, respondent judge tried to kiss her while she was several persons respecting her travails and her desire to transfer and to go on leave.
transcribing notes in the staff room after office hours. Respondent judge, who
earlier locked the door from the inside, desisted when she threatened to shout In his Comment2 dated November 13, 2003 that he submitted in compliance with the
and to throw a stapler at him. She related the incident to her husband after she Court’s directive, respondent judge denied the charge of sexual harassment, particularly
got home. with respect to allegations about his having kissed or about his aborted attempt to kiss
the complainant and making what amounts to sexual advances. In this regard,
respondent judge stated that he cannot recall being with the complainant alone in his CR. explained, at the outset, that when complainant reported back for work sometime in
As to a near-kissing incident after office hours, respondent judge stated that complainant February 2003 expressing the sentiment that she can no longer stomach respondent
had never rendered overtime service. And even as he denied touching her legs on one judge and wanted a transfer or detail to another sala, he conveyed, in a voice louder than
occasion, respondent judge went on to explain that the fact that complainant’s table was usual, the following message to the complainant and those then present: "If you have
veritably surrounded by those of her co-workers argues against the suggestion of an problems with the Presiding Judge, you either talk to him directly or take it up with me,
indecent behavior going unnoticed. If, according to respondent judge’s logic, he instead of your going around the different salas and discussing your problem with them."
subjected the complainant to sexual harassment, her having attended thereafter his According to respondent Ugali, on February 24, 2003, he confronted Judge Carpio who
birthday party, the retirement party of an office mate and her visits to his chamber on April denied the nasty rumor about the complainant’s gripe against him. Respondent Ugali
3 and 11, 2003 would make no sense. would, however, assert that the complainant had never breathed a word about her being
actually kissed by respondent judge, about the fondling of legs, the stapler incident and
On the matter of the P500 he gave the complainant on her birthday, respondent judge the open display of a gun.
offered that it was an office practice for the presiding judge and branch staff members to
contribute something for the celebration. He denied insinuations of surreptitious giving, When asked whether she wanted to press charges against the respondent judge,
the amount adverted to having been handed out to the complainant in the presence of complainant, so respondent Ugali claims, replied in the negative, her only wish being that
the process server for the purpose of buying food. Respondent judge also downplayed she be permitted to transfer. Respondent Ugali also denied calling her "praning."5 He
his having winked at complainant, noting that he winks at all the members of his staff, stated that what he, in context, told the complainant was: "Ang hirap sa iyo, hindi ka lang
regardless of gender, as a greeting gesture. inconsiderate at selfish, nagiging praning ka na." Respondent Ugali then proceeded to
explain that his outburst was in reaction to complainant’s statements: (a) that her co-
Closing his 12-page comment, respondent judge stated that the complaint is actually an employees should not complain if she goes on leave since it is her salary anyway that
offshoot of four (4) incidents which bear on the performance by the complainant of her would be affected, and (b) that she was complaining that he (Ugali), as her boss, was no
official duties. longer minding her and was saying things indirectly. 6

Among the attachments to respondent judge’s Comment, which would later be submitted On the other hand, respondent Barcelona’s curt answer to allegations that she did not
in evidence, is Annex "1,"3 a photograph taken during his birthday celebration on transmit the complainant’s leave application and DTRs was: She presented the
December 23, 2002. complainant’s leave application for April 2003 to respondent Ugali for the latter’s
signature, only to be instructed to inform the complainant about the presiding judge being
the proper signing authority since she had been absent since February 7, 2003; and that
Against respondent Ugali, the complaint alleged under paragraph No. 52 thereof, that he
is liable for misconduct for "scolding," "yelling at" and "calling [the complainant] ‘praning’" being the case, her application should be refiled accompanied by requisite
and "for his failure to take any action despite [her] report to him about the sexual clearances;7 that when complainant refiled her application for leave for April 2003 even
harassment committed by [respondent judge]." without the needed clearances, she transmitted the same to the Supreme Court Leave
Section8 after the same had been duly signed.
With respect to respondent Barcelona, complainant would also have her administratively
As events would later develop, respondent Barcelona’s reference to an April 2003 leave
adjudged guilty of and penalized for misconduct for not transmitting to the proper office
her (complainant’s) application for leave and the daily time records (DTRs). As would was not exactly responsive to the complainant’s lament which contemplated the non-
later be clarified, the leave application and the accompanying DTR covered the month of transmittal of the March 2003 application for leave.
March 2003.
Per an en banc Resolution9 of March 16, 2004, the Court resolved to refer the case to the
Court of Appeals (CA) for investigation, report and recommendation. The CA eventually
In their separate comments,4 both respondents Ugali and Barcelona denied having
committed acts that would constitute misconduct. For his part, respondent Ugali designated Associate Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores as Executive Justice Investigator.
By agreement of the parties, the affidavit of each affiant, including that of each of the her to go to the comfort room so that he could kiss her. While Alcuizar’s
protagonists, was considered his/her direct testimony, albeit clarifications on certain testimony is uncorroborated on these incidents but (sic) her narration thereof in a
points were allowed. direct and unhesitating manner convinces one that she is sincere in her
revelations. Her demeanor in the witness stand leaves no doubt that she was
Following a marathon hearing, the Investigating Justice submitted her Report dated June speaking the truth. She was spontaneous and frank.
2, 2006. In it, she recommended that respondent judge be adjudged guilty of sexual
harassment under of Republic Act No. 7877,10 Section 3 of which defines work- related xxx xxx xxx
sexual harassment in the following wise:
From Alcuizar’s answers, one can feel the directness and spontaneity with which
Section 3. xxx Work …related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, they were uttered. And that can only spring from the lips of one who has gone
employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer … who, having authority, through an offensive experience.
influence, or moral ascendancy over another in a work … environment, demands,
requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of xxx xxx xxx
whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the
subject of said Act.
The [respondent] Judge’s soliciting a favor from Alcuizar that he be allowed to
kiss her and at other times directing Alcuizar to go to the comfort room so he can
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is kiss her are requests made in a workplace for sexual favor from his underling. It
committed when: made the workplace intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for his
employee, Alcuizar.
1. The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or the
employment … or in granting said individual favorable … Considering that in administrative proceedings only substantial evidence is
privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in required to make a finding of guilt, such quantum has even been exceeded in this
limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in any case. The evidence proves the commission of sexual harassment by the
way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment [respondent] Judge. (Words in brackets added)
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;
The Report also recommended the suspension from office of respondent judge for three
xxx xxx xxx (3) months for the offense.

2. The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or The Court is unable to agree with the recommendation and the premises and findings
offensive environment for the employee. holding it together.

The Investigating Justice predicated her recommendation on the strength of the following We start off with the matter of proof. In administrative or disciplinary proceedings, the
main findings and observations: burden of proving the allegations in the complaint rests on the complainant.11 While
substantial evidence would ordinarily suffice to support a finding of guilt, the rule is a bit
The testimony of [complainant] Alcuizar against the [respondent] Judge is different where the proceedings involve judges charged with grave offense.
credible. She was consistent and unambiguous in her claim that on several Administrative proceedings against judges are, by nature, highly penal in character and
incidents while in the workplace, the [respondent] judge, who is her superior, are to be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases. The quantum of proof
sought her permission to kiss her which she refused and at other times directed required to support the administrative charges or to establish the ground/s for the removal
of a judicial officer should thus be more than substantial; they must be proven beyond in September 2003, albeit she appeared to have sought counsel from her office mates,
reasonable doubt.12 To borrow from Reyes v. Mangino:13 among other co-workers in the judiciary. Reckoned from the alleged first incident,
complainant herself testified that it took her "more than thirteen (13) months" to file this
Inasmuch as what is imputed against respondent Judge connotes a misconduct case.21 This seeming lack of urgency on the part of the complainant in taking concrete
so grave that, if proven, would entail dismissal from the bench, the quantum of administrative action against a wayward judge bears heavily on her case.
proof required should be more than substantial.
The Court has certainly taken stock of the fact that even after the alleged "sexual
Going over the testimonial and documentary evidence thus adduced during the harassment" incidents transpired, complainant still dared to repair, in several instances,
investigation, the proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt threshold required under the premises to respondent Judge’s chamber all by her lonesome self when the natural thing to do is to
has not been hurdled. As it were, circumstances obtained and/or credible evidence avoid occasions likely to further exacerbate an already difficult situation. What is more,
presented tended to cast a heavy cloud on complainant’s credibility and, necessarily, her complainant, by her own admission22 even attended the birthday party of respondent
case. For instance, Alfredo Tayabas, a court aide, contradicting complainant’s account of judge in his residence and, judging from photographs23 of smiling, clapping and swinging
washing food containers ("pyrex") inside the CR, testified that "[O]n August 29, 2002, court staff personnel, complainant definitely appeared to be having much fun. To be sure,
after the [birthday] lunch, [he] and Mr. Michael Monje cleared the table …, brought the complainant is not exactly a picture of one recently sexually harassed by her offending
plates and utensils used to the comfort room and washed them all inside."14 And then host.
there is the complainant’s allegation that on a day in October 2002, while working past
the regular working hours, respondent judge attempted to kiss her. This incident could not With the view we thus take of the case, complainant has failed to prove her charge
have happened as the complainant narrated for the simple reason that not once did she against the respondent judge with the quantum of proof required under the premises.
render overtime service for the month of October 2002. The entries in her DTR 15 for the Given this perspective, the dismissal of the complaint as against respondent judge for
period which show her being out of the office by 5 p.m. of every working day negate the insufficiency of evidence is indicated. The Court, however, stresses that this ruling does
idea of overtime work. not necessarily reflect on the bona fides of the filing of the complainant, let alone what
complainant perceives to be the righteousness of her grievances. However, the facts of
Complainant also asserted that there were instances when respondent judge touched her the case and applicable jurisprudence leave no room for another kind of disposition.
legs while she was working at her computer16 and placed his gun on top of her
table.17 This assertions are hardly credible. Complainant’s working desk was inside the The misconduct charge against respondent Ugali is, as recommended by the
staff room, which the Investigating Justice describes as "quite small … for the number of Investigating Justice, also dismissed. To be sure, respondent Ugali has adequately
personnel it houses … [where] the distance of tables from an occupant’s chair to the next addressed and very well acquitted himself of the allegations against him. His evidence
table provides only a passage for a normal sized person."18 It is thus unthinkable that showed that, upon being informed of complainant’s beef against respondent Judge
respondent judge would be so callous and boorish as to perform the highly disgraceful Carpio, he inquired what the complainant exactly wanted (she just wanted a transfer, at
acts thus ascribed to him by the complainant in the staff room during office hours in full that time24), confessing at the same time that he cannot plausibly order respondent Judge
view of branch employees. Respondent Ugali, among other court personnel, 19 swears to Carpio’s dismissal from the service.
not having observed respondent judge putting his gun on top of complainant’s table, let
alone touching her legs during all the years he (Ugali) was seated beside her. 20 To be sure, respondent Ugali was in an awkward position. For here was an underling
pouring out her concerns and needing the kind of help which could undermine the
If respondent judge had, indeed, made overt sexual overtures towards, and blatantly delivery of public service and offend a superior. Yet, he tried to do something about a
demanded a kiss from, the complainant within court premises, good sense would dictate delicate situation by confronting the respondent judge about what had been reported to
that the matter be immediately reported to the proper authorities. Per the complainant’s him (Ugali).
own account, respondent Judge allegedly made his indecent advances from August 2002
to January 2003. However, she decided to make a formal complaint with this Court only
And with respect to the complainant’s request for transfer, respondent Ugali could not be As we see it, the loss could have not been intentional or the product of willful behavior so
held liable for not favorably acting thereon, given that her absences had, as aptly as to support a charge of misconduct. By complainant’s own account, before she filed this
observed by the Investigating Justice, already brought havoc to the office in general and administrative complaint, no bad blood existed between her and respondent
to Acuizar’s co-employees, in particular, since they have to perform the tasks that pertain Barcelona,27 who even stood as a sponsor in her (complainant’s) wedding.28 It would thus
to the complainant in whole or in part. be difficult to adjudge respondent Barcelona guilty of misconduct for what appears to be
a clear case of carelessness. Considering, however, the loss also of the April and May
Vis-à-vis the scolding and yelling incidents adverted to by the complainant, the Court, like 2003 DTRs of complainant which impelled her, upon respondent Barcelona’s urging, to
the Investigating Justice, finds them of little moment to merit belaboring. Criticisms and refile new ones, the Court finds respondent Barcelona guilty of simple negligence for
scoldings from a superior, particularly if deserved, or being yelled at occasionally happen which she ought to be reprimanded, as the Investigating Justice recommends.
in any organization and are not necessarily counter-productive. And Clerks of Courts, like
any mortal, have their own idiosyncrasies and are subject to human limitations which IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court rules as follows:
everyone is heir to. Well-intentioned outbursts cannot, without more, plausibly be the
subject of an administrative complaint. Nonetheless, it may not be amiss to state that (a) The complaint as against respondent Judge Emmanuel C. Carpio for sexual
humility, patience, self-restraint and civility are virtues usually credited not to bullies and harassment is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. He is, however,
wimps, but to the strong in character. admonished, to avoid any act or conduct that would in any way diminish public
trust and confidence in the courts and the individuals representing the institution.
With respect to the charge against respondent Barcelona, the Court finds that
complainant submitted her March 2003 DTR to Barcelona, the latter’s denial (b) The complaint insofar as it charges Atty. Crisostomo S.J. Umali for
notwithstanding. Respondent Barcelona’s initials on the DTR in question which she misconduct is also DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.
admitted to be her own prove the fact of submission. Her failure to transmit the
complainant’s March 2003 DTR to the Leave Section of the Court does not, however, (c) Mrs. Divinagracia B. Barcelona is adjudged guilty of SIMPLE
translate to misconduct, a term denoting an improper conduct, or a transgression of some NEGLIGENCE and is hereby REPRIMANDED, and warned to be more diligent
established and definite rule of action, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, that
and careful in the performance of her assigned duties and functions
implies wrongful intent.25 In the strict civil service law viewpoint, misconduct and
negligence are different concepts, albeit gross negligence by a public officer may
constitute misconduct.26 SO ORDERED.

As reported by the Investigating Justice, accomplished DTR forms, once submitted by the
personnel concerned, pass the area of two employees, i.e., Ms. Barcelona, who puts the
DTRs in the folder, and Atty. Ugali who signs them. Once signed, the DTRs are returned
to Ms. Barcelona who keeps a copy, gives one to the accomplishing employee, and
sends two copies (original and duplicate) to the Leave Division of the Court.

Clearly, when Atty. Ugali returned the signed bunch of DTRs to respondent Barcelona,
complainant’s March 2003 DTR was still in the folder. That a copy of the March 2003
DTR found its way back to the complainant can only mean that respondent Barcelona
received it and sorted the copies. How it failed to be included in the bunch of DTRs said
respondent transmitted to the Court remains unexplained. Did respondent Barcelona lose
it unintentionally? Or did she arrange the loss?