TOPIC Chapter I – The Law and Society (Canons 1-6)

CASE NO. A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-127-CA-J

CASE NAME Re: Letter-Complaint of Atty. Ariel Samson C. Cayetuna, et al., All
Employees of Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias against Associate Justice
Michael P. Elbinas, CA Mindanao Station
PONENTE Velasco, Jr., J.
PETITIONER Attys. Ariel Samson C. Cayetuna, Cathy D. Cardino, Cynthia Y. Jamero,
Grace L. Yulo, Ken Rinehart V. Sur, Roderick Roxas (driver), and Alfonso
Abugho (utility worker)
RESPONDENT Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias, CA Mindanao Station
TYPE OF CASE Instant Administrative Complaint. Based on the docket number, this is an
administrative matter in Office of the Court of Administrator. Unverified
letter-complaint dated April 30, 2008 charging Justice Elbinias with Gross
Inefficiency; Bribe Solicitation; Drinking Liquor in Office Premises; Personal
Use of Government Property and Resources; Falsification of a Favored
Employees Daily Time Record; Disrespect Towards fellow Justices;
Oppression through Intemperate, Oppressive and Threatening Language; and
Grave Abuse of Authority.
GROUP MEMBER Timothy K. Ilog

RELEVANT FACTS
1. Complainants filed an unverified letter-complaint against Associate Justice Elbinias with
the charges aforesaid. They prayed for: 1) dismissal from service of Justice Elbinias; 2) his
preventive suspension pending investigation of the instant administrative complaint; 3) the
provision of security to them from his retaliation and reprisal on account of this complaint;
and 4) the acceptance by the Court for their enclosed resignation letters without prior
approval of Justice Elbinias for fear that they would be peremptorily terminated by him
instead.
2. Atty. Cayetuna wrote to then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno a confidential letter. The said
letter narrated how he was instantly terminated by Justice Elbinias when he refused to sign
a letter-reply to a litigant. He also asked for help so he could receive his salary for latter
half of April 2008 and Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) for April
2008. He did not receive the latter for it was released a day after he was terminated. He
also said that the CA cashier informed him that, due to his termination, he could not receive
his Emergency Economic Assistance (EEA) and midyear bonus.
3. Justice Elbinias assigned Atty. Cayetuna to draft the letter-reply to a letter-complaint by a
litigant to explain what happened in the case that had already been decided (Algabre v.
RTC, Branch 15, Davao City, in which the said justice was the ponente). The former asked
the latter to sign and he would just note it. Atty. Cayetuna refused and wrote a letter to
 Justice Elbinias explaining he could not sign the said letter-reply due to his conscience.
This prompted Justice Elbinias to peremptorily terminate him through a letter sent to the
personnel officer of the CA Mindanao Station, Ruby Jane B. Rivera.
4. The other complainants also filed the unverified letter-complaint in solidarity with Atty.
Cayetuna.
5. Then CA Presiding Justice Conrado A. Vasquez, Jr. recommended the approval of the
resignations. These were duly approved but excluded Atty. Cynthia Y. Jamero’s. In
response to this, the said presiding justice recommended the approval of Atty. Jamero’s
resignation, which eventually got approved.
6. Complainants sent another unverified letter-complaint. This letter thanked the Court for
speedy acceptance of their resignation letter. They also alleged that Justice Elbinias sent
an antedated letter to the Personnel Officer of the CA Mindanao Station terminating Atty.
Jameros upon knowing her resignation was not included. They also alleged that Justice
Elbinias refused to sign their clearances. Lastly, they said that the said justice had a
malevolent intent in allegedly sending a list of their names to then newly appointed CA
Associate Justice Ayson in connection with the applications of some of them. They
reiterated their prayer to preventively suspend Justice Elbinias to prevent him from using
his position for harassment.
7. In Justice Elbinias’ Comment, he admitted telling the complainants that he would fire them
but this was because of the “inefficient and sloppy draft work of the complainants-lawyers
and the unsatisfactory performance of the complainants driver and utility worker.” He said
that he did not force Atty. Cayetuna to sign the letter-reply and the latter just set him up.
He had no confidence in him anymore that left him no option but to fire him.
8. In his Supplemental Comment, Justice Elbinias claimed that the sudden abandonment of
the complainants that led to the disarray with records required an inventory of records and
cases before he would sign their clearances. He said he was reorganizing his office when
the complainants wrote their additional letter-complaint. He also accused them of
collective theft for the loss of some documents.
9. All the current employees assigned in Justice Elbinias’ office sent a letter of support for
him. The YMCA of Misamis Oriental, Inc. issued a board resolution that expressed
appreciation of Justice Elbinias having integrity and dedication. The City Council of
Cagayan de Oro City also issued a resolution commending Justice Elbinias for his integrity
and dedication in serving the citizenry.
10. In their Omnibus Reply and Manifestation, the complainants argued that the Court properly
treated the unverified complaints as anonymous complaints since Justice Elbinias admitted
the material allegations in the said complaint. They also said that the Atty. Cayetuna’s
drafts could not be stolen by the author himself and they did not share confidential
information (violating RA 3019) to unauthorized person as CJ Puno was not be considered
an unauthorized person. They also stressed having no liability under Articles 363, 364, 353
and 183 of the RPC for they filed the letter-complaints with utmost circumspection and
 confidentiality. They also debunked their alleged inefficiency by submitting their
performance ratings of Very Satisfactory and comparative Judicial Data Statistics from the
Information and Statistical Data Division of the CA that showed no substantial change in
the output data on case disposition of Justice Elbinias before and after their resignation.
They also said they had been contemplating resignation even before the incidents with
Attys. Cayetuna and Abugho because of his demeaning and terrorizing actuations against
them.
11. Justice Elbinias assailed the Omnibus Reply and Manifestation for not being under oath
and that the allegations were insincere and untruthful. He also said that they misled the
facts by falsely claiming he admitted the allegations in his Comment and Supplemental
Comment. He also debunked and countered the other claims and allegations against him.

ISSUES AND RATIO

1. Whether or not the instant case is substantiated. NO.
• Both letter-complaints the complainants sent were unverified. Meanwhile, the Omnibus
Reply and Manifestation of Complaints was not under oath. According to Section 1 of Rule
140, administrative proceedings against judges may be instituted by: 1) motu proprio by
the Supreme Court; 2) upon verified complaint with affidavits of persons having personal
knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate allegations;
or 3) upon an anonymous complaint supported by public records of indubitable integrity.
• The complainants did not execute a verified complaint and did not submit their affidavits
showing personal knowledge of their allegations.
• To their excuse, they cited Sinsuat v. Hidalgo in asserting that the Court properly
recognized their letter-complaints as anonymous complaints. However, in Sinsuat, the
Court took the unverified motion and subsequent letters as anonymous complaints because
the respondent there admitted the material allegations and these were verifiable from the
trial court’s records and CA’s Decision.
• In the case at bar, the Comment and Supplemental Comment cannot be said to show Justice
Elbnias’ admission of the allegations. They were also not verifiable from public records of
indubitable integrity. There werew also no competent evidence submitted that can
substantiate or support the material allegations.
• They could have remedied this by submitting the Omnibus Reply under oath and appending
thereto their respective affidavits.

2. Whether or not material allegations were meritorious. NO.

• Justice Elbinias’ comment and supplemental comment belied the allegations.
• On Justice Elbinias signed the DTR of Andoy despite knowing that the absences do not
reflect there.
o He was not aware of Andoy’s absences or if he did not mark those in his DTR for
he signs all the DTRs, which are submitted together. If Andoy did not mark his
 absences, he said it was his inadvertence done in good faith. With no DTRs of
Andoy that Justice Elbinias signed and the logbook of their ioffice showing the
employees’ times of arrival and departure, the Court cannot hold Justice Elbinias
liable.
• On Justice Elbinias’ non-denial of the failure to timely act on the TRO application in the
cited cases in the complaint.
o He does not deny that he did not issue a TRO. Nevertheless, it is not tantamount to
admission of wrongdoing. The issuance of TRO is subject to the court’s discretion
and certain conditions the law provides. When there is no showing that the issuance
of a TRO is proper and well-nigh dictated by a right of a party-applicant that needs
protection, the judge cannot be imputed to having undue delay or inaction on a TRO
application. It was also a general allegation as there were no specific cases cited;
thus the Court agrees this complaint is general and lacking of specificity. The
complainants were unable to show that TRO issuance in specific cases is of prime
importance to the provision protection of a party’s right in esse.
• On the allegation that the complainants submitted their undertakings as per Justice
Elbinias’ instructions.
o The Court finds this incredible. These application letters could not be under the
instructions of Justice Elbinias. It is the applicant who submits an application letter.
These were certainly from and could not have been under Justice Elbnias’ direction.
• On the allegation that Justice Elbinias did not sign their clearances because of office
inventory records and lack of follow-up by the complainants.
o This was sufficiently explained by his reasoning that he was reorganizing his office
and doing an inventory of the rollo of his cases. Furthermore, the fact that the
complainants received their benefits and got rehired, the delay in signing of their
clearances did not unduly prejudice them.
• Even if these complaints were considered anonymous complaints, they cannot prosper as
the public records of indubitable integrity do not verify and the other competent evidence
do not substantiate or support these allegations.
o In Anonymous Complaint against Pershing T. Hared, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, Canlaon City, the Courted reiterate the rule that anonymous
complaints “may be easily verified and may, without much difficulty, be
substantiated and established by other competent evidence.”
• The charges of Gross Inefficiency; Bribe Solicitation; Drinking Liquor in Office Premises;
Personal Use of Government Property and Resources; Falsification of a Favored
Employees Daily Time Record; Disrespect Towards fellow Justices; Oppression through
Intemperate, Oppressive and Threatening Language; and Grave Abuse of Authority are not
supported by public records not substantiated by competent evidence.
 o The incident with Engr. Rowell T. Magalang, Administrative Officer, Maintenance
and Utility Unit of CA Mindanao Station was just a misunderstanding between
Justice Elbinias and Engr. Magalang.
o On the complaints of Roxas and Agbuho regarding their unauthorized absence,
Justice Elbinias said that when he was looking for them, they were not around.
Since the utility worker and the driver are expected to be in the office during office
hours, it is just logical that if they are not around, then they cannot be present.
o Regarding Atty. Cayetuna’s termination, the Court finds it a misunderstanding that
blown out of proportion. There is no basis for Atty. Cayetuna to refuse signing the
draft of the letter-reply for it showed that the explanation is factual in nature and is
not pejorative to CA Associate Justice Lim. It is not right for Atty. Cayetuna to
write a formal letter about his refusal to sign the draft.
• Complainants need the trust of Justice Elbinias as their immediate superior. In Philippine
Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Angara, the Court reiterated the principle behind
and the element of trust in the employment to a primarily confidential position. Citing De
los Santos vs. Mallare: Every appointment implies confidence, but much more than
oridinary confidence is reposed in the occupant of a position that is primarily confidential.
The latter phrase denotes not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties
of the office but primarily close intimacy which insures freedom of intercourse without
embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust of confidential
matters of state.
o It is Justice Elbinias’ right to change his confidential employees when the relation
between him and his lawyers has deteriorated to the point that there was no more
intimacy that “insures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom
from misgivings of betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state.”
• The Court still hopes that Justice Elbinias learns from this to better and improve his
management and supervision of his staff considering how this conflict resulted.

RULING
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant administrative complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

RELEVANT LAWS

Section 1, Rule 140:

SECTION 1. How instituted.Proceedings for the discipline of Judges of regular and special courts
and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by
the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have
personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate their
allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable
integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and
omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules
of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.

OTHERS

• Motu proprio- Latin. Of his own motion (The Law Dictionary: https://thelawdictionary.org/motu-
proprio/)