Diesta Case

A.M. No. P-05-1970 (May 30, 2011)

Atty. Diesta fined for neglect; Santos-Tacla suspended for falsifying records, stressing integrity.

Facts:

On April 20, 2004, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received an undated anonymous complaint against Atty. Portia Diesta, Branch Clerk of Court, and Luz Santos-Tacla, Clerk III, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 263 in Pasig City. The complaint alleged various acts of dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019). Specific allegations against Atty. Diesta included habitual tardiness, collecting unauthorized commissioner's fees for ex parte hearings, failing to raffle the publication of cases and judicial notices, and illegally practicing law by representing her practitioner-father in court. Tacla was accused of being frequently absent, falsifying her attendance records, and acting as a "runner" for Atty. Diesta.

The OCA required both respondents to comment on the allegations. Atty. Diesta submitted her comment on August 9, 2004, while Tacla did so on August 10, 2004, both denying the charges. Following a review of their comments and a discreet investigation, the OCA recommended that the case be redocketed as a regular administrative matter and referred to the Executive Judge of the Pasig City RTC for investigation.

Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor conducted hearings, summoning the respondents, court staff, and Atty. Jaime del Rosario, who was alleged to have been asked for a commissioner's fee by Atty. Diesta. The investigation revealed that Atty. Diesta was often late, left early, and had lost the attendance logbook. It was also found that she had asked for a commissioner's fee and failed to raffle judicial notices. Tacla was found to have falsified her attendance records.

The OCA's report, dated February 10, 2006, concluded that both Atty. Diesta and Tacla were guilty of the charges against them. Atty. Diesta was found to have lost the attendance logbook while in her custody, which indicated carelessness, and was also found to have accepted "token" amounts from lawyers, which was deemed inappropriate. Tacla's explanation for her discrepancies in attendance records was not accepted, and she was found to have not faithfully accomplished her daily time record.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether Atty. Diesta committed acts of dishonesty and misconduct in her official capacity as Branch Clerk of Court.
  2. Whether Tacla engaged in misconduct by falsifying her attendance records and failing to perform her duties properly.
  3. What penalties should be imposed on Atty. Diesta and Tacla for their respective infractions.

Arguments:

  • For Atty. Diesta:

    • Atty. Diesta denied the allegations of tardiness and misconduct, asserting that she was not required to record her time of arrival and departure. She claimed that the loss of the attendance logbook was not intentional and that she had made efforts to locate it. Regarding the commissioner's fee, she argued that it was an isolated incident and that she did not coerce any payments from lawyers.

  • For Tacla:

    • Tacla contended that any discrepancies in her attendance records were unintentional, attributing them to a malfunctioning watch. She denied being Atty. Diesta's "runner" and maintained that she was engaged in official duties during her absences.

  • For the OCA:

    • The OCA presented evidence supporting the allegations against both respondents, including testimonies from court staff and the absence of proper documentation for judicial notices. The OCA argued that both Atty. Diesta and Tacla failed to uphold the integrity expected of public servants.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court found ample evidence supporting the OCA's findings of culpability against both Atty. Diesta and Tacla. It noted that Atty. Diesta's admission regarding the missing attendance logbook indicated negligence in her duties. The court also highlighted the corroborating testimonies regarding Atty. Diesta's request for a commissioner's fee and the failure to raffle judicial notices, which constituted misconduct.

For Tacla, the court found that her discrepancies in attendance records were significant and indicative of misconduct. The court emphasized that public servants must exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity.

The court disagreed with the OCA's recommendation for mere reprimands, asserting that both respondents were guilty of less grave offenses. Atty. Diesta was found guilty of simple neglect of duty and simple misconduct, resulting in a three-month suspension, which was converted to a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos due to her resignation. Tacla was found guilty of simple misconduct and was suspended for one month and one day, with a stern warning regarding future conduct.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. Public servants are expected to maintain the highest standards of integrity and honesty in their official duties.
  2. Negligence in the performance of official duties, such as the loss of important records, can lead to administrative penalties.
  3. Accepting unauthorized fees or "tokens" from lawyers undermines the integrity of the judicial system and constitutes misconduct.
  4. Administrative offenses are classified into grave, less grave, and light, with corresponding penalties that reflect the severity of the misconduct.