l\epublic of tbe .

tlbtlipptner
~upreme ~ourt
;fflanila

EN BANC

EVA KRISSEL CAPAROS, A.M. No. P-22-057 [Formerly

OCA JPI No. 20-4993-P]
Complainant,
Present:

GESMUNDO, CJ,
.LEONEN,
CAGUIOA,
HERNANDO,
- versus - LAZARO-JAVIER,.
INTING,
ZALAMEDA,
LOPEZ, M.,
GAERLAN,
ROSARIO,
LOPEZ, J.,
DIMAAMPAO,**
DEBHEM E. :FAJARDO, MARQUEZ,
STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH KHO, JR., and
170, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SINGH, JJ
MALABON CITY,
Promulgated:
Respondent. October 3, 2023

X--------------·-------------------------- ---------X
DECISION

PERCURIAM:

We resolve the complaint-affidavit filed by Eva Krisse1 Caparos

(complainant) against respondent Debhem E. Fajardo (Fajardo),
Stenographer III, Branch 170, Regional Trial Comi (RTC), Malabon City.

On Official Business.
·• On Official Business.
 2 A.M. No. P-22-057 [Formerly OCA
Decision
IPI No. 20-4993-P]

In her Complaint-Affidavit 1 dated 30 Octobe~ 201_9 initially _filed

before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Tagmg City, complamant
averred:
1. That [Fajardo] was referred to [me] by one of [my]
officemates;
2. That [Fajardo] was at the time working at Branch 170
of Regional Trial Court [(RTC)] of Malabon City as court's
(sic) stenographer;
3. That [Fajardo] promised to fix and file [my] annulment
case at Branch 170, RTC, ofMalabon;
4. That in consideration of such promise to fix [my]
annulment case, [Fajardo] asked for [PHP]250,000.00 service
fee·
5. ' That I have given a total amount of [PHP]248,000.00 to
[Fajardo] in several installments;
6. That no movement was made [on my] case as
promised;
7. That [I] filed a complaint in Barangay Malabon to give
back the remaining balance of [PHP] 100,000.00 after payment
of [PHP]]J00,000.00 prior to the filling (sic) of the complaint
in Barangay Tafiong, Malabon;
8. That [Fajardo] promised to pay the [PHP]l00,000.00
balance during the Brgy. hearing;
9. That up to present, despite previous demands, [Fajardo]
was not able to pay the remaining balance of
[PHP] l 00,000.00; 2

Complainant thus sought to formally institute a collection/small

claims case against Fajardo.

In an Order 3 dated 06 December 2019, the MeTC, through Presiding

Judge Juan Jose P. Enriquez III, ordered the dismissal of the case. The court
held that since the claim arose "from an incident involving the inappropriate
conduct of a court employee (soliciting funds for a favorable annulment case
decision) and not one of the provisions in [the 2016 Revised Rules of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases], the proper action would be to file an
administrative case rather than a small claims proceeding." The MeTC
thereafter directed for the case to be transmitted to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action.

In its 1st Indorsement 4 dated 16 January 2020, the OCA referred the
Complaint to Fajardo for comment.

1
Rollo, p. 10.
2
Id.
3
Id. at 25 .
•, Id. at 26. Signed by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (now Member of the Court), Assistant
Court Administrator Lilian C. Barribal-Co, and OCA Chief of Office (Legal Office) Wilhelmina D.
Geronga.
Decision 3 A.M. No. P-22-057 [Formerly OCA
IPI No. 20-4993-P]

Fajardo, in her Comment 5 dated 24 February 2020, admitted that she

owed complainant a sum of money, but denied that it emanated from a
promise to fix and file the latter's annulment case. She further averred:

(1) First, I am a solo parent, thus, I shoulder all the

expenses of my family. I try to make both ends meet by
religiously dividing my take-home pay as Stenographer III. In
the late quarter of 2016, my family was confronted with a
grave financial problem when my son was involved in a case. I
had to secure services of a lawyer. Until now, my son is still
detained at Malabon City jail and I am expending for his case.
I tried to pool money by asking from my relatives, but it was
not enough. I gathered enough strength to approach
Complainant who, by the way, is already my long-time friend
at the time. I informed her of my financial situation and asked
her if I can borrow One Hundred Thousand Pesos
([PHP] 100,000.00) with a promise to repay it with interest. She
accepted my offer as she really understands my situation then.
At first, I was able to pay part of the principal plus interest [a]
month after she granted me the loan. However, soon thereafter,
I could no longer keep up with the demands of paying all my
financial obligations even if I worked doubly-hard. I was
already caught in a cycle of "utang-bayad-utang" with the
Complainant. That is how my loan obligation with her
ballooned, until she filed a complaint against me before the
Lupon ofBarangay Tafiong, Malabon City.

(2) Second, it is worth mentioning that other than the self-

serving claim of the Complainant that I received money from
her in exchange of my promise to fix and file her annulment
case, there is no other evidence attached to the Complaint to
support it. On the contrary, records during the proceedings
before the Lupon as well as the Demand Letter sent by her
lavryer would show that the subject of her complaint is my
"pagkakautang" which is the truth of the matter. It is only
when she filed a Collection of Sum of Money that she
mentioned that I promised [to fix and file] her annulment case
in exchange of money, thus, her intention is really suspicious.

(3) Last, I am complying with the said loan obligation

albeit having difficulty in so doing. And the reasons for such
are already explained above. However, it will never be my
intention to run away from it. My plea to the Complainant is
for her to give me ample time to pay her. As promised during
the Barangay Proceeding, I will pay her as soon as I get the
proceeds of my loan from the GSIS.

On 09 July 2020, the OCA received complainant's Reply 6 dated 26

5
Id. at27-29.
6
Id. at 30-39.
 Decision 4 AM. No. P-22-057 [Formerly OCA
IPI No. 20-4993-P]

June 2020. She maintained that her allegations against Fajardo were
supported by evidence. She also included a transcript of an exchange of text
messages between her and Fajardo, which, according to her, "undoubtedly
shows that the money was given xx x to [Fajardo] to arrange and process
the complainant's annulment case xx x" We quote:

Eva: Eh ilangweeks nyo nap o (sic) kc sinabi na until Friday. Mag

aapril napo hanggang ngayonndi pa nasesend ung petition. Di ko
a/am kung kaya pa po bat lg matapos lahat to hanggang May. Ang
bagal ng usad. Not worth it ung binayad ko.

Eva: Lahat po ng sinabi nyo [ginawa] ko naman, nagbigay pa

tayo dun sa doktora pero palpak naman. Sana ayusin nila ung
trabaho kc ndi po biro ung mga gastos ko lalo na ngayon na may
baby nako. Ang hirap po tita. Minsan naiiyak n Zangpo aka sa mga
nangyayari sa buhay ko.

Tita Debbie: Pinagawan ko paraaan sa kontak ko this time eva para

mabilis na may assurance n next week

Eva: Tita, eto [seryosong] usapan. Jlang reminder na naman

binigay ko sa inyo before Jane 10. Jan 8 na at wala ka [namang]
reply. Pasensyahan tayo dahil tutuloy ko [talaga] pagkakaso sa
inyo. Sobrang gipit kami nung holiday at ngayon r'' birthday ng
anak ko sa Jan 13 madami pa kami babayaran. May mga utang
pang unpaid. FYI: Si Tita Malou automatic gagawin kong witness,
kaya kung ayaw niyo ng administrative case sumunod kayo sa
[ napagkasunduan].

Tita Debbie: eva sa jan IO dedeposit [namin ni] ate malou sa bpi
mo. 7

Report and Recommendation of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB)

8
In its Report dated 25 May 2022, the JIB recommended that:

(1) [T]he instant administrative complaint against Ms.

D~bhem E. Fajardo, Stenographer III, Branch 170, Regional
Tnal Court, Malabon City, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular
administrative case;

(2) . Ms. Fajardo be found GUILTY of Gross Misconduct·

and '

' Id.at31.
8
Id. at 40-50. Pe~ned by C.hairperson Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (Ret.) and concurred in b Vice-
C?airperson Justice Angelma Sandoval-Gutierrez (Ret.), First Regular Member Justice Sesin:ndo E
Villon (Ret.), and Second Regular Member Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada (Ret.). •
Decision 5 A.M. No. P-22-057 [Formerly OCA
IPI No. 20-4993-P]

(3) Ms. Fajardo be DISMISSED from the service, with

FORFEITURE of all or part of the benefits as the Supreme
Court may determine, and DISQUALIFICATION from
reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including
government-owned or -controlled corporations. Provided,
however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include
accrued leave credits. 9

The JIB found no merit in Fajardo's claim that the amount she owed
complainant was because of a loan and not on account of a promise to "fix"
the latter's annulment-case. 10

In a Resolution 11 dated 17 January 2023, the Court directed the JIB to

conduct a hearing on the instant administrative case.

The JIB, in its Supplemental Report 12 dated 08 June 2023, maintained

its earlier recommendation to hold Fajardo liable for Gross Misconduct
constituting violations of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, and for
her dismissal from the service.

Ruling of the Court

The Court adopts the findings of fact and recommendation of the JIB.

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of

action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the
public officer. It is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of
law or standard of behavior and to constitute an administrative offense, the
misconduct should relate to or be connected with the perfonnance of the
official functions and duties of a public officer. In order to differentiate gross
misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent
to violate the law, and not a mere error of judgment, or flagrant disregard of
established rule, must be manifest in the fonner. 13

In the case of Villahermosa, Sr. v. Sarcia, 14 the Court explicitly stated

that:

0
Id. at 49.
" Id. at 46.
" Id at 55-56.
12
Id. at 415-434. Penned by Chairperson Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (Ret.) and concurred in by Vice-
Chairperson Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (Ret.), First Regular Member Justice Sesinando E.
Villon (Ret.), Second Regular Member Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada (Ret.) and Third Regular Member
Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla (Ret.)
13
Ambrosio" De/as Armas, 869 Phil. 562, 568-569 (2020).
14
726 Phil. 408 (2014).
Decision 6 AM. No. P-22-057 [Formerly OCA
IPI No. 20-4993-P]

The sole act of receiving money from litigants, whatever the

reason may be, is antithesis to being a court employee.

The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel requires that court

personnel avoid conflicts of interest in performing official duties. It
mandates that court personnel should not receive tips or other
remunerations for assisting or attending to parties engaged in transactions
or involved in actions or proceedings with the judiciary. "The Court has
always stressed that all members of the judiciary should be free from any
whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to their duties in the judicial
branch but also to their behavior outside the court as private individuals, in
order that the integrity and good name of the courts of justice shall be
preserved." Court personnel cannot take advantage of the vulnerability of
party-litigants.

xxxx

To the dismay of this court, it has received many complaints from

party-litigants against court employees extorting money from them. This
court has already heard various reasons given by court employees for
receiving money from party-litigants. Thus, this court has held that money
given voluntarily is not a defense. Alleged good intentions to help party-
litigants are self-serving and will not absolve the misconduct committed
by court employees.

There is no defense in receiving money from party-litigants.

The act itself makes court employees guilty of grave misconduct. They
must bear the penalty of dismissal. 15 (Emphasis supplied; citations
omitted)

In the case at bar, evidence shows that Fajardo received money from
complainant in exchange for the promise to process the latter's annulment
case. Initially, Fajardo denied the allegations and claimed that the money she
received was a loan from the complainant. However, during the clarificatory
hearing, it came to light that the money Fajardo received from the
complainant was not a loan but a promise to help fix and file complainant's
annulment of marriage. Fajardo' s answers bear this out:

Justice Gutierrez: Then you were asked by the counsel of the complainant
or you have heard concerning her [complainant] desire to file a case for
annulment against her husband, did you have a hand on this? Regarding
the filing of a petition for annulment against her husband? Just be honest,
because we have here the exchange of text messages between you and the
complainant on this matter on the filing of the petition for annulment. Just
be honest, because text messages between [t]wo people are admissible as
evidence. So you must be honest in answering my question, okay?

So, what did you promise the complainant regarding her filling of

" ld.at416-417.
Decision 7 AM. No. P-22-057 [Formerly OCA
IP! No. 20-4993-P]

petition with the court for annulment of marriage against her husband?
Please relay everything that transpired, because the exchange of messages
between you and the complainant are here before us, and because we are
here to know the truth.
[Fajardo]: Yes, Your Honor. I will tell you the truth, I will answer it
correctly y;our Honor. The truth of the matter is this, Ms. Malou was the
one who approached me and asked me if I know a lawyer who can help
her acquaintance or a friend who needs a lawyer to file an annulment.
Because Ms. Malou is very close to me, Your Honor, and then I answered.
"Yes, Ate Malou, I know someone who can help your friend to fix her
annulment.

But I don't have a promise that I will be the one to help her
negotiate the transaction of her annulment case in court to file her petition
in court, Your Honor. That's the truth. It was through Ate Malou the
conversation that someone needs a lavvyer.

Justice Gutierrez: You are now denying that the exchange of message
between you and the complainant, never was it mentioned that you're
helping her inside the court.

Witness:

No, I did not mention that, Your Honor.

Justice Gutierrez:

What are the messages here? I will read it to you. "Good Morning
Eva," who is Eva:

Witness:

The Complainant, Your Honor.

Justice Gutierrez:

And so, this is your text to her, "Good morning, Eva. Kung
nadelay man yung period, wag kang mag[-Jalala dahil may
kausap na ko sa loob para mapadali at abutin ng eksaktong one-
year annulment mo. Pinaparush ko na talaga."

Kanino mo pinaparush yun annulment? This is your text

message to her, you cannot deny this. Ano yun pinaparush mo?

Witness:

Your Honor, I will answer that, dun po sa lawyer na ni!apitm,

[naminj ni Ms. Malou.

Justice Gutierrez:

Sa loob? Saan yung loob? Is it not the court? Just be honest. If

you are honest here, we will give you credit to that, to your
Decision 8 A.M. No. P-22-057 [Formerly OCA
IPI No. 20-4993-P]

honesty.

Ano ang ibig sabihin ng loob, ay naparush ko sa loob. What?

Witness:

Yes.,Your Honor. The loob is the court, the office Your Honor.

Justice Gutierrez:

What office?

Witness:

The office where the counsel/lawyer will file the annulment.

Justice Gutierrez:

Are you sure?

Witness:

Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Gutierrez:

If I repeat to you all the messages here, it all means the court.

Witness:

Opisina nga pong korte.

Justice Grulla:

For Justice Gutierrez, I can read to you the text messages here
between you and the complainant.

June 13, 2017, 9:20PM, the sender is Tita Debbie,

"goodevening eva, pinadala ko n kay ate malou draft ng petition
mo draft p lang yan kung may gusto ka fidagdagj lagay mo."

Justice Gutierrez:

vVhat is that petition? ls that not a petition for annulment.

Witness:

Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Gutierrez:

See. Please continue.

Decision 9 A.M. No. P-22-057 [Formerly OCA
IPI No. 20-4993-P]

Justice Grulla:

"ganyan gnawa grounds dapat kc tlga panget fang] personality

nya para granted tlga ang annulment
Justice Gutierrez:

Sino ang panget ang personality? Yung husband?

Witness:

The respondent, the husband, Your Honor.

Justice Grulla:

"Good evening tita deb, Sorry d ko nasagot, nasa CR ako. Sige po.
Basahin ko pag nadala na ni Carlo saken. Thank you po."

Justice Gutierrez:

Yung nadala ba yung petition.

Witness:

Yes po, Your Honor.

Justice Grulla:

"Tita Deb, nabasa ko na po. Kung papasa na po yun /para/ ma

grant ung annulment ok napo ako don."

Justice Gutierrez:

Yan ang sagot ng complainant, nabasa na nya yun petition for

annulment.

Justice Grulla:

June 15, 2017, 12:24PM, "sori eva late reply naka duty kc ako sa
hearing ok pakibgay n fang kay carlo draft p fang yan d p yan
finalize may idadagdag p dyan report ng psychologist kol kta
mayagabi''

Justice Gut:1errez:

That is your reply to her text.

Justice Grulla:

July 5, 2017, 7:58AM, "Goodmorning Tita Deb! Magbibigay po

ako ulit tonight ng another SOK kay Carlo pra iabot nya kay Tita
Ma!ou pra magbigay sayo. Thanks po!"

Justice Gutierrez:
Decision 10 A.M. No. P-22-057 [Formerly OCA
IPI No. 20-4993-P]

That is your text to her. That is recorded.

Justice Grulla:
"gud am din eva ok receive ko again syanga palay un [sa]
interview psycho natin by next sat [inform] kta ha usap tyo tom
evening gud luck and god bles ."

Justice Gutierrez:

So, you see. Even the interview to be conducted by the

psychologist, you knew. Please continue.

Justice Grulla:

July 5, 2017, 9:06PM, "Hi Tita. Absent po si Carlo today. Bigay ko

na Zangsa kanya pag pumasok sya bukas. Thanks"

"ok cge"

Justice Gutierrez:

Bigay nalang yun Petition, Okay, continue please.

Justice Grulla:

July 6; 2017, 7:28AM "gud am eva gcing k p b"

"Yes tita"

July 21, 2017, 4:51PM, "Tita Deb, pwede bang 5K muna bukas?
Ndi pa pala ako nakakabayad ng rent. Yun last na 50K na
bin~gay ko kasi binigla ko ng bayad eh. Wlang pang isang buwan
pagltan from the last time na nagbigay akong 50K. Ndi ko po
alam na may babayaran pa pla upfront dun sa psychiatrist pag
kinita naten."

.Justice Gutierrez:

So, you see? Meron pang bayad, that is still payment to be made to
the psychiatrist. Who is that psychiatrist? It is the psychiatrist that
will interview the parties in this Petition for Annulment. Okay,
please continue.

Justice Grulla:

"ok eva cge 2pm appt natin kausap ko na dra de! rosario"

Justice Gutierrez:

Dra ..Del Rosario is the psychiatrist, isn't it? Just be honest.

Witness:

Yes.
Decision 11 A.M. No. P-22-057 [Formerly OCA
IPI No. -20-4993-P]

Justice Grulla:

"Eva sa SM megamall daw tyo meet tom dun na kami before 2pm
sabi ni dra kc may meet p cya after natin"

Justice Gutierrez:

So, there is an understanding that the doktora will be there to meet

the parties. Continue.

Justice Grulla:

July 21, 2017, 9:43PM, "good evening eva pwed b kta tawagan
kungd k busy", "ok."

July 22, 2017, 4:58PM, "Tzta, ano nga ung ipapadala ni Doctora
sa ex hubby ko?"

"sulat Zang inform cya na nag conduct cya ng psychological

examination at yun report yata bibgyan din cya ng kopya."

"ikaw n dumaan ka sa examination"

"ang alam ko papadalan cya sulat cge txt na Zang kta s tunes para
clear."

"Maya gabi eva kol kta sa byahe pa kc kami."

Justice Gutierrez:

So, that means the psychiatrist will give notes that will be
questionnaires to the husband. Continue, please.

Justice Grulla:

July 22, 2017, 8:49PM, "Tita, mga kelan kaya makakatanggap

ng notice from court yun isa?"

"tatapusin muna ni dra ang psychological report mo."

"Mga kelan maya matatapos yun?"

Justice Gutierrez:

That is the question of the complainant. What's the answer of the

respondent?

Justice Grulla:

"may isa p witness dapat na nakaka alam ng [naging] love story

nyo yun tlga nakakakilala [sa] inyo dalawa"

"Dpat po ba mameet ni doktora yun?"

July 25, 2017, 6:35AM, "Good morning tita deb, May witness
Decision 12 A.M. No. P-22-057 [Formerly OCA
IPI No. 20-4993-P]

na po akong isasama sa next Saturday (Aug 5). Paki confirm po

si Doc kung ok sa kanya, hopefully matuloy tayo."
"ok cge 21oy tyo nasabi ko na s kanya"

July 27, 2017, 9:43PM, "good evening pwed meet tyo tom para
makuha ko statement ng witness mo magawa na din?

"Naku tita, sat sun off po kami pwede kasi may pasok kami
kinagabihan, mawawalan kami tulog. Pero kung around BGC ung
place ng meet up ng mga morning bka pwede naman."

Justice Gutierrez:

I'll go direct to the point, okay? What you hear are the exchanges
of conversations between your and the complainant. Apparently, it
is very obvious you are hurting her with respect to her Petition for
Annulment. 16 (Emphasis supplied)

In previous administrative cases involving court personnel, the Court

has admitted text messages as evidence and upheld their probative value.
The Court considered the content of the text messages and the identification
of the person sending them as substantial evidence to prove the commission
of administrative offenses. 17 Here, the exchange of text messages between
complainant and Fajardo were properly authenticated in accordance with
Section 2, Rule 11 of the A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, 18 pertaining to the Rules on
Electronic Evidence.

Moreover, Section 2, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court

Personnel 19 specifically prohibits all court employees from soliciting or
accepting any gift, favor or benefit based on any or explicit understanding
that such gift, favor, or benefit shall influence their official actions. In
addition, Section 2 (e), Canon III of the same Code provides that court
personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, loan, gratuity, discount, favor,
hospitality, or service under circumstances from which it could reasonably
be inferred that a major purpose of the donor is to influence the court
personnel in performing official duties.

In Valdez v. Alviar, 20 the Court found Alviar guilty of grave

misconduct for asking and receiving money from therein complainant and
leading the latter to believe that he could finish the annulment process within
six (6) months to one (]) year. Thus, the Court imposed upon F arj ado Alviar

16
Rolio, pp. 389-400 (TSN dated 17 May 2023).
17
Astorga and Repol Law Qffices" Villanueva, 754 Phil. 534, 552(2015).
18
Rule 11, Section. 2 of Rtll.ES ON ELECTRONIC Ev•DENCC:
SECTION 2. Ephemeral electronic communications.~ Ephemeral electronic communications shall be
proven by the testim?ny _o_f a person w~o was a party to the same or has personal knowledge thereof. In
the absence or unava1lab1hty of such witnesses, other competent evidence may be admitted
19
A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, approved on 23 April 2004.
20
869 Phil. 589 (2020).
Decision 13 A.M. No. P-22-057 [Fonnerly OCA
IPI No. 20-4993-P]

the ultimate penalty of dismissal as his act of asking and receiving money
from complainant as some sort of package deal for the purported speedy
processing of the annulment proceedings constitutes grave misconduct. 21

Under Section 14 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, 22

gross misconduct is classified as a serious charge, punishable by either: (a)
dismissal from service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Supreme
Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or
appointment to any public office, including government-owned or-controlled
corporations, provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no
case include accrued leave credits; {b) suspension from office without salary
and other benefits for more than six (6) months but not exceeding one (1)
year; or (c) a fine of more than Pl00,000.00 but not exceeding·
P200,000.00.23

Considering the gravity of the offense committed by Fajardo, the

ultimate penalty of dismissal is necessary.

As a final note. The Court has stressed that "the behavior of all
employees and officials involved in the administration of justice, from
judges to the most junior clerks, is circumscribed with a heavy
responsibility." 24 Court personnel, regardless of position or rank, are
expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the strict standards of
integrity and morality. 25

WHEREFORE, respondent DEBHEM E. FAJARDO, Court

Stenographer III, Branch 170, Regional Trial Court, Malabon City, is found
GUILTY of Gross . Misconduct, and is DISMISSED from the service
effective immediateiy, with FORFEITURE of all retirement benefits,
except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to her re-employment in any
branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations.

Respondent is further ORDEID:D to RETURN to complainant the

amount of Pl00,000.00 within a reasonable time, or within 180 days from
receipt of this Decision. This is subject to the interest at the rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until its full
satisfaction.

SO ORDERED.

21
Id. at 597-599.
22
A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, approved on 22 February2022.
23
Rule 140, as amended, Sec. I 7.
" Office of the Court Administrato, v. Buzon, 890 Phil. 367,374 (2020); Citations omitted.
25 Id.
Decision 14 A.M. No. P-22-057 [Formerly OCA
IPI No. 20-4993-P]

WE CONCUR:

AL .
,, Chief Justice

Associate Justice

(On Official Business Leave)

~K:~RN~O AMY C. LAZARO-JAVIER
Associate Justice Associate Justice
/~
FfE~TING
Associate Jfistice

SA~U~AN
Associate Justice

{
RICA · . ROSARIO JHOS~OPEZ
Ass iate Justice Associate Justice
~

'
(On Official Business Leave)
JAPAR B. DIMAAMPAO
Associate Justice
Ja.DAS
~:sociate
,'-~
~JusticeRQUEZ
?,JJ.ih!-

---·

~4~<" '
ANTONIO T. KHO, JR~
Associate Justice Associate Justice