FRANCISCO P. OCAMPO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, Judge Evelyn S. Arcaya-Chua of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED from office for six (6) months without salary and other benefits. She is WARNED that the commission of the same or a similar act in the future shall merit a more severe penalty. [58] Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that: (1) The Honorable Supreme Court failed to appreciate the failure of Sylvia Santos to present Emerita Muñoz, from whom Santos procured the P100,000.00, in the proceedings before Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador; (2) The Honorable Supreme Court failed to appreciate that one of the bases for the dismissal of the present case of 5 December 2007 was the Affidavit of Retraction filed by Muñoz on 12 January 2006; (3) The Honorable Supreme Court erred in sustaining the finding of Justice Salvador that [respondent] did not refute Santos' declaration during the clarificatory hearing that [respondent] returned the money to her; (4) The Honorable Supreme Court erred in sustaining the other findings of Justice Salvador; and (5) The Honorable Supreme Court erred in not considering [respondent's] testimonial and documentary evidence. [59] Respondent prayed that Stenographer Diana Tenerife be directed to submit to this Court the fully transcribed stenographic notes of the proceedings held on September 17, 2008 and to submit her tape of the proceedings on the said date, and that her motion for reconsideration be granted and that the instant case be dismissed. Respondent's prayer for submission to this Court of the fully transcribed stenographic notes of the proceedings held on September 17, 2008 is an attempt to clarify alleged inaccuracies in the said transcript of stenographic notes. The Court notes that respondent Judge had earlier filed a Motion dated October 10, 2008 on this matter, which was already resolved in the Resolution of the Court promulgated on February 13, 2009, thus: Respondent filed a Motion dated October 10, 2008, claiming that there were significant omissions of testimonies in the Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) particularly in the statement " Ibinalik naman ho nila ang pera ;" and that such question was also beyond the scope of clarificatory questions that may be propounded, as nowhere in the previous testimonies of complainant, either in the direct or the cross-examination, did she mention the return of the money, and it was only during the clarifiactory hearing that it surfaces; thus, she (respondent) was deprived of her right to cross-examine complainant. Respondent prayed that corrections on the TSN be made, or that the testimonies of complainant - that "the money was returned to me" and " ibinalik naman ho nila and pera " - be stricken off; and in case the correction of the TSN was no longer proper, her manifestation that the said testimony of complainant was given only during the clarificatory hearing and, in effect, without an opportunity f