Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

A.M. No. P-06-2110, February 13, 2006

(Formerly OCA IPI No. 02-1377-P)
CRISTETA D. ORFILA, Complainant,
V
ESTIFINA S. ARRELLANO, YNARES-SANTIAGO, H.R.M.O. II, Respondent.

Facts:
OCA IPI No. 02-1377-Pwas filed on April 20, 2002 by Cristeta D. Orfilla, a Process Server,
charging Estifina S. Arellano, a Human Rights Resource Management Officer II, with
conduct of unbecoming a court employee.
On April 16, 2002, about 8:15 am, Orfila went to the office of Atty. Jesusa P. Manigas, who
was then Clerk of Court of RTC Manila, to give the latter summan for breakfast.
During their conversation, Arellano barged in demanding payment of unpaid interest due
thereon in the amount of 2,000 php
During the heated argument between the two inside the office, Atty. Manigas, suddenly
slapped Orfila on her cheek prompting Atty. Manigas to call the other employees Glenda
Homeres and Ernesto Lacaba. They testified that they witness the altercation and the
slapping incident.
Homeres helped Orfila to sit down as she seemed about to fall while Lacaba tried to pacify
Arellano who then have taken on of her shoes and was attempting to hit Orfila with it.
Orfila had herself examined in the Ospital ng Manila and was attended by Jose Pingol who
issued her a medical certificate diagnosing her with swelling of the left and right cheeks
that could have been caused by the slapping,
Atty. Buendia who was not present during the event was tasked with the investigation on
the matter by Atty. Manigas who relayed to her what she witnessed and inhibited herself
from the matter due to the fact that Arellano was her Kumadre and Orfila gave her suman.
On the same day of the incident, a meeting was held with all the section chief present
and officers as well as Arellano, they were reminded to be vigilant in preventing a
repetition of the same untoward incident in the office.
Later that afternoon, Judge Arellano came to their office, he went to see both Atty.
Manigas and Atty. Buendia and told them that he gave his wife money out of his
retirement plan “para may mapalibangan” and that refusal to pay a debt was actionable
under Civil Service Law.
The Investigating committee headed by Atty. Buendia, interviewed by Orfila, Arellano,
Homeres, Lacaba and Atty. Manigas and tried to reconcile Orfila and Arellano several
times but to no avail. The parties were not represented by counsel nor were stenographic
notes were taken during the investigation since it was only and inter-office matter.
On April 29, 2002, the investigating committee rendered a report to Atty. Manigas that
documented the slapping incident but stopped short of making any recommendation.
Atty. Manigas endorsed the same for administrative action to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA)through the Hon. Enrico A. Lanzanas, acting executive Judge of RTC
Manila. At the same time Orfila filed the instant administrative complaint as well as a
 criminal complaint against Arellano for slight physical injuries, slander by deed and oral
defamation with the office of the Manila City Prosecutor.
Arellano decried complainant’s version of the facts as fabricated, trumpedup, malicious
and intentionally filed by Orfila out of vindictiveness and for the purpose of harassment.
Arellano claimed that Orfila obtained a 10,000 php loan from her at 10% interest every
month to be paid in three (3) months and when the complainant defaulted, she tried to
collect from her every pay day. It took Orfila years to pay a part of the principal amount
and that the complainant would burst into anger every time she was reminded of her
payment, however she did not file any formal complaint but only asked her husband to
send a demand letter.
As per Arellano’s testimony, Orfila came to her office in the RTC library informing her that
Atty. Manigas has the money for the balance of Orfila’s loan. Arellano claimed that as
soon as she entered the office, Orfilla began lambasting her.
Arellano did not say a word but just crossed her arms. Atty. Manigas said
“Magpasensyahan na kayo.” Orfilla stood up and and pointed her finger near Arellano’s
face and said “Ikaw bastos ka hindi ako magbabayad sayo”. Arellano pushed her and
parried Orfila’s fingers with her hand. She denies slapping her, claiming that Orfila could
have been hit by her own hand when she pushed it toward her. Also, she tried to remove
one of her shoes for self defense, or to scare Orfila because the latter was charging
towards her.
Arellano claimed that the instant case was filed by Orfila in connivance with Atty. Manigas
and Atty. Buendia. Atty. Manigas was also indebted to her in in total amount of 15,000 php
at 10% montly interest which she refused to pay allegedly tried to convince her several
times to condone her loan obligations as well as that of Orfila in exchange for Orfila’s
desistance from filing a complaint against her but she flatly refused. They then conspired
with Atty. Buendia to silence her by carefully planning a set-up wherein she was called to
Atty. Maningas’s office under the pretext that Orfila would settle her indebtedness through
her. They then made it appear that she had provoked the incident and Atty. Maningas
could be the sole witness while Atty. Buendia would conduct the investigation. Arellano
charged that Glenda Homeres and Ernesto Lacaba were only instructed by Atty.
Maningas to testify in favor of Orfila.
Arellano said she did not file a complaint since she did now want any enemies for when
she was retiring soon. And that after the slapping incident, Atty. Manigas and Atty. Buendia
harassed and threatened her to block her retirement benefits.
Arellano’s husband also testified on his wife’s behalf, essentially corroborating her tale.

Issue:

The issue is whether or not the respective conduct of the parties warrant the imposition of
administrative sanction.

Ruling:

Estifana S. Arellano is found guilty of misconduct, lending money at usurious interest rates
and lending money to a superior, and meted a fine in the amount equivalent to six months’
salary deducted from whatever leave and retirement benefits/privileges she may be
entitled to.
Under the Civil Service Law, lending money at usurious rates of interest is prohibited.
The allegations of Arellano on frame-up was farfetched and flimsy and that she failed to
present a scintilla of evidence that the slapping incident was a mere fabrication and that
it was physically imposible for Orfilla to sustained injury on her left cheek if her right hand
which she allegedly thrusting at Arellano’s face was merely pushed by her. She failed to
substantiate her allegations.
Although the slapping may not be work related, the braziness of her act is totally
unacceptable and should not be countenanced. Employees of the judiciary, should be
living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of official duties but also in their
personal and private dealings with other people as to preserve at all times the good name
and standing of the courts in the community.