EN BANC
A.M. No. 2002-20-SC
COMPLAINT AGAINST MS. LORNA GARMA, CLERK II, JUDICIAL RECORDS OFFICE
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 18 2005
Acting on the Memorandum of Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, dated March 5, 2003, to wit:
This refers to the Incident Report of Atty. Ma. Luisa D. Villarama, Assistant Clerk of Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, En Banc, (OCC-EB), dated 29 August 2002 which, through your Honor’s approval dated September 2, 2002, upon recommendation of Atty. Luzviminda D. Puno, Clerk of Court, OCC-EB, was treated as an administrative complaint against Ms. Lorna Garma, Clerk II, Judicial Records Office, and thus referred to the Complaints and Investigation Division, OAS, [of] this Court for investigation, report and recommendation.
In said report, Atty. Villarama stated that on 28 August 2002 at around 3 o’clock in the afternoon, her attention was called by Atty. Lani Papa regarding a lady who was at the Office (OCC-EB) following-up the release of the resolution in G.R. Nos. 141660-64 (people of the Philippines vs. SPO2 Cesar Fortuna, et al.) and G.R. No. 142065 (Leonido Lumanog vs. Hon. Jaime Salazar, and People of the Philippines).
The lady, Mrs. Lumanog, claimed to be the wife of the accused who was being recommended by the DOJ for referral to the National Kidney Institute for diagnostic examination in view of an acute renal condition. Atty. Winston Baniel, who was tasked to entertain her query, informed her that the resolution was not ready for release. When informed of this, Mrs. Lumanog asked how much she needed to pay to get it as she had been told that payment had to be made to the lawyers in the office to get this done.
Alarmed by this revelation, the lawyers at the OCC-EB flocked to interview Mrs. Lumanog and later they gathered that it was Lorna Garma, an employee of the Judicial Records Office (JRO) who was being alluded to by Mrs. Lumanog as the one who was helping her to follow-up the case.
Thereafter, when Mrs. Lumanog stepped out of the room to attend to her son who was accompanying her, the lawyers decided to call Lorna Garma and a few minutes later, after they had talked to her, she (Atty. Villarama) was told that Atty. Teresita Dimaisip, Chief, JRO, and Lorna Garma’s superior, had also been requested to come.
By this time, Mrs. Lumanog had returned to the office and by then she (Atty. Villarama) joined Atty. Dimaisip in asking Mrs. Lumanog about the incident. The latter claimed that Lorna Garma, who she just met when she was told to go to the JRO to inquire if the DOJ had already sent its Indorsement to the Court, had volunteered to help her regarding the case and had even given her the JRO’s telephone number. She also said that Lorna Garma had successively sent her text messages to report on the case and that she came back ready to pay the amount which Lorna would tell her.
Mrs. Lumanog showed them (Attys. Villarama and Dimaisip) two text messages which were still recorded in her cellphone coming from a sender she presumed was Lorna Garma. They requested Mrs. Lumanog not to erase the text messages but instead to forward them to her (Atty. Villarama) to save them. They then decided to call Lorna Garma.
During this confrontation, Lorna Garma claimed she was only requested by Chief Zuño and another fellow from the DOJ to assist Mrs. Lumanog but she failed to satisfactorily explain to them her unusual interest in the case to the extent of taking extraordinary efforts to not only bring Mrs. Lumanog to the Office of the Clerk of Court to inquire but also to make repeated text messages to her, much more, reassuring her that there was “no problem with the case as she had entered into a compromised (sic) agreement, the details of which she would explain” to Mrs. Lumanog when she calls the landline.
Lorna Garma denied having sent the text messages but was stunned when Mrs. Lumanog’s cellular phone was showed to her with the messages and with her number registered as its sender.
Mrs. Lumanog refused to put into writing her personal account of this matter for fear that it might prejudice her [husband’s] case.
In her comment dated 12 September 2002, Lorna Garma alleged that on 26 August 2002 (Monday), at around 1:45 in the afternoon while she was working on her desk in the Docket Division, Judicial Records Office (JRO), her officemates called her attention about a lady looking for her at the receiving area.
As it was their first meeting, the unexpected guest introduced herself as Mrs. Lumanog only. She said somebody from the Department of Justice (DOJ) told her to go to the JRO and look for a certain Ms. Lorna Garma from whom she can request assistance regarding her problem in the Supreme Court. Upon hearing the information, she (Ms. Garma) thought all the while, with all honesty and candor, that she was the one referred to by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño of the DOJ during their last phone conversation just a week or two ago, who needed help. So she entertained Mrs. Lumanog.
Mrs. Lumanog then handed to her a piece of paper containing an endorsement from the DOJ addressed to the Supreme Court requesting that her husband be brought to the National Kidney Institute. Sensing the urgency of the matter, she accompanied Mrs. Lumanog to Atty. Felipa Anama at the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc (OCC-EB). As the latter was not around, she was referred to Atty. Buena instead.
After having gone over the letter, Atty. Buena advised her (ms. Garma) to verify from a certain Grace, another employee of the OCC-EB, if the OCC-EB had already received the copy for the Court of the subject letter. As neither she nor Mrs. Lumanog knew the G.R. Number of the case, they (Garma and Lumanog) went back to the JRO to check the available records. After finding out that the copy for the Court of said letter was still with the JRO and had not yet been forwarded to the OCC-EB, a co-employee in the JRO in charge of the matter immediately delivered the same to the OCC-EB.
She (Ms. Garma) did not accompany Mrs. Lumanog anymore when she, together with Ms. Garma’s co-employee who was carrying the subject letter, went to the OCC-EB. However, she (Ms. Garma) expressed concern with Mrs. Lumanog’s plight saying “Kung may problema, baba ka na lang dito sa JRO.” That was the last time she saw Mrs. Lumanog that day.
At about 4:30 p.m., Mrs. Lumanog asked her, through the phone, if she could provide her with information as to the status of her letter request. Finding no wrong and knowing the urgency of her case, she acceded and even volunteered to update her with its status through text messaging, after which she (Mrs. Lumanog) gave her cellular phone number.
The following day, 27 August 2002 (Tuesday), she (Ms. Garma) received a call at around 10:30 in the morning from Mrs. Lumanog. The latter narrated her ordeal in the hands of a secretary of the wife of a justice whose name she withheld. She confided having spent a considerable amount of money for her husband’s case only to find out that she was just being fooled. She does not know what Mrs. Lumanog’s intention was in telling all those things.
In the late afternoon, she (Ms. Garma) received information from the OCC-EB that Mrs. Lumanog’s letter was already included in the Court’s agenda. As she promised, she sent Mrs. Lumanog a text message to inform her about the said development and advised her to go back to the OCC-EB the following day to personally check the action taken thereon by the Court.
On 28 August 2002, at around 2 o’clock in the afternoon, Atty. Anama directed her (Ms. Garma) through the telephone, to immediately go to the OCC-EB without telling the reason why. Once there, she was asked if she knew of the JRO employee who was declaring that the lawyers of the OCC-EB were soliciting money from a party. She said she did not have knowledge of it. Atty. Anama ordered her to go back to the JRO when the person she wanted to present to her was not around.
Moments later, she (Ms. Garma) was summoned again to the OCC-EB. There already waiting were Atty. Villarama and Mrs. Lumanog together with her boss, Atty. Dimaisip. On this occasion, she had the opportunity to meet personally Mrs. Lumanog for the second time after the 26 August 2002 encounter.
Atty. Dimaisip showed her (ms. Garma) a piece of paper bearing her name and office address. Atty. Dimaisip asked her whether the same was her handwriting. After examining the paper, she admitted that it was hers. Then Atty. Dimaisip asked, “Did you give that piece of paper to Mrs. Lumanog?” She said she never gave that paper to Mrs. Lumanog though she could not remember anymore to whom the said paper was given. Mrs. Lumanog confirmed that she got it from a lady employee at the DOJ. She then wondered what was wrong with giving one’s contact address.
Atty. Villarama confronted her whether she sent a text message to Mrs. Lumanog that day, 28 August 2002. When she said “no” since her last text to her was in the late afternoon the day before, 27 August 2002, Atty. Villarama showed her the cellular phone of Mrs. Lumanog with a message received at around 12:00 noon, 28 August 2002. The text message reads: “No problem with the case as I had entered into a compromised (sic) agreement, the details of which I should explain.”
Having no knowledge of that text message and the sender thereof, she denied being the one who sent it to Mrs. Lumanog. Thereafter, a comparison was made between her cellular phone ‘number which is 0919-675-8767 and the number which allegedly is the sender of the questioned text message. Not being the sender (Ms. Garma) of that particular message, the numbers did not match.
Again, they turned to Mrs. Lumanog and asked whether it was [she] (Ms. Garma) who sent that text message to her. She said it came from a certain Baby. Asked who that Baby was, Mrs. Lumanog at first hesitated to answer then for whatever reason, she [said] that it was only then that she knew that the Baby who sent her that text message turned out to be Lorna. The rest of them (she for one) were stunned by Mrs. Lumanog’s posturing. When challenged to make her complaint in writing and under oath, she hesitated for fear allegedly that her husband’s case might be affected.
To date, she is still in quandary as to what infraction she committed against Mrs. Lumanog; or what office rule did she violate. She has not done anything wrong against anybody; that her only fault, if it can be considered as such, is that she was so accommodating to Mrs. Lumanog; that after hearing her alleged bad experience with a secretary of the wife of a Justice, she just tried to prove how the Honorable Court would act on her urgent request.
This Office, through a letter dated 22 October 2002, requested Mrs. Lumanog to appear on 28 October 2002 at 9 a.m. to give light to the incident involving the alleged “case fixing” by Ms. Garma. Mrs. Lumanog failed to appear on the scheduled date. A second notice dated 13 November 2002 was sent to her also proved futile. Hence, this Office proceeded with the determination of the case based on available records.
From the foregoing, it is not clear whether Ms. Garma was, indeed, the one who actually told Mrs. Lumanog “that payment had to be made to the lawyers in the office (OCC-EB) to get a copy of the resolution.” (emphasis supplied). Although it was subsequently gathered that it was Ms. Garma who was being alluded to by Mrs. Lumanog as the one helping her to follow-up the case, Mrs. Lumanog, during her interview by the lawyers at the OCC-EB, did not positively point, when she could have done so, to Ms. Garma as the one who told her about the said “payment.” Even an analysis of what Mrs. Lumanog had said “that she came back ready to pay the amount which Ms. Garma would tell her,” would preclude indications that Ms. Garma is responsible therefore. Presumably, somebody might have hinted to Mrs. Lumanog about the “payment” before she gets to the Court, and in accordance with which, she might have assumed, without knowing whether the “payment” is illegal or official, that it would later be explained by Ms. Garma when they see each other. Hence, while it is believed that Mrs. Lumanog revealed among the lawyers at the OCC-EB is true, Ms. Garma as its author or source remains uncertain.
With respect to the text messages, Ms. Garma admitted having sent Mrs. Lumanog a text message in the afternoon of 27 August 2002,, but specifically denied having sent a message on 28 August 2002 particularly that which reads: “No problem with the case as I had entered into a compromised (sic) agreement, the details of which I should explain.” Contrary to what was written on the incident report, Ms. Garma claimed that her cellular phone number, 0919-6758767, which she had written in her comment did not match the number which is allegedly the sender of the questioned message. Verily, Mrs. Lumanog could have provided this Office with the necessary and relevant details that would have led to the truth of the matter. Example, a second comparison could have been made between the cellular phone number of Ms. Garma as she had written in her comment, and the number which allegedly is the sender of the questioned message. Unfortunately, she deliberately ignored repeated notices by this Office for investigation. Quite understandably, even at the outset, Mrs. Lumanog refused to put into writing her personal account of the incident for fear that it might prejudice her [husband’s] case.
In the case of Dagsa-an v. Conag (290 SCRA 12), the Court held, thus:
“The withdrawal of a complaint or the desistance of a complaint does not necessarily warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint. In instances, however, where an administrative case cannot proceed without the active participation of the complainant, the Supreme Court may find itself with hardly any alternative but to dismiss the complaint.”
The foregoing notwithstanding, other relevant circumstances, if considered, may seem to suggest that Ms. Garma is more innocent than. . . culpable for any irregularity for breach of her duty. For instance, if Ms. Garma were of the intention to deceive Mrs. Lumanog into believing that payment has to be made to secure a copy of the resolution, she should have done the follow-up herself and not referred Mrs. Lumanog to the OCC-EB and let her alone deal with people in the OCC-EB as she might reveal, as in fact she did, whatever arrangement they had. It must be noted that the “payment” which Mrs. Lumanog alleged was intended not for Ms. Garma but for the lawyers at the OCC-EB. What could have motivated Ms. Garma [into] saying to Mrs. Lumanog about the “payment” if she could not directly benefit from it monetarily, unless, she colludes with somebody at the OCC-EB. Moreover, taking the questioned text message in its substance, Ms. Garma, being just a clerk, is in no way capable of nor is she in any position to enter into any kind of compromise affecting the case. Neither had she access to the records being kept by the OCC-EB nor had the means of knowing the contents thereof. After all, consistent with what Ms. Garma explained regarding an endorsement from the DOJ, Mrs. Lumanog was only concerned about the release of the Court resolution in G.R. NO. 142065 (Leonido Lumanog, et al. vs. Hon. Jaime Salazar, Jr. and People of the Philippines) in connection with the DOJ recommendation for referral of her husband Leonido Lumanog to the National Kidney Institute for diagnostic examination and treatment, and not about the case itself.
With respect to Ms. Garma’s failure to satisfactorily explain her alleged unusual interest in the case, it is not unusual either, given the situation then prevailing, i.e., Ms. Garma, a mere clerk, being interviewed by high-ranking officials for an alleged infraction, that her reflection would have diminished and caused her lapse to logically respond to questions that apparently would incriminate her. Nonetheless, she had adequately explained in her comment that Mrs. Lumanog is the person she believed was the one referred to by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño of the DOJ who needed help. It is, thus, not remote to embark on an assumption that her conduct of being apparently excessively accommodating to Mrs. Lumanog may be attributed to the fact that she was just heeding to a favor asked of her by a notable official in the DOJ. Even then, what Ms. Garma did for the “needy” Mrs. Lumanog was’ not too much as to constitute undue favor. It has been established that upon hearing Mrs. Lumanog’s cause, Ms. Garma immediately accompanied her to the OCC-EB, the Office in the Supreme Court which can address her concern, and sent her a text message once the following day to inform her of the development in her case.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully recommended that this instant administrative case against Ms. Lorna Garma, Clerk II, Judicial Records Office, be DISMISSED. However, Ms. Garma should however be warned to be more circumspect in her dealings with litigants to avoid any suspicious of impropriety in the performance of her job.
The findings and recommendation of Atty. Candelaria are well taken.
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his or her complaint. Such evidence must be competent and derived from direct knowledge.[1] Charges based on mere conjectures and suppositions cannot be given credence[2] and shall, as such, be dismissed. The Court notes that the complainant in this case did not even file a formal, written complaint against the respondent.
The Court also agrees that no bad faith can be attributed to the respondent for her actuations. However, as aptly put by Atty. Candelaria in her Memorandum, the respondent must be reminded to be more circumspect in her dealings with litigants. It is wont to stress that the image of the judiciary is necessarily mirrored in the conduct of men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel.[3] Thus, the conduct of court personnel must always be beyond reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them be free from any suspicion that may taint the Judiciary. Any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary shall not be countenanced.[4] Indeed, Supreme Court personnel who deal directly with the public, including the respondent, bear the brunt of this sacred duty.
The court resolves to consider the instant administrative matter CLOSED AND TERMINATED. Respondent Lorna Garma is REMINDED to be circumspect in her dealings with the public.
Davide, Jr., C.J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court