JUDGE ESTRELLITA M. PAAS, VS. EDGAR E. ALMARVEZ.

Ruling

Accordingly, the OCA recommended that Judge Paas be found guilty of simple misconduct in office, and be penalized with reprimand with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. II. This Court's Findings: A. On the charges against Almarvez: Indeed, this Court finds that there is no sufficient evidence to support the charge of violation of confidentiality of official communication against Almarvez. The charge against Almarvez in Judge Paas' complaint-affidavit which reads: That said ALMARVEZ being in charge of the mails had divulged informations which is confidential in nature to party litigants in advance of its authorized release date before the release of Court Order and Decision for consideration of a sum of money thus giving undue advantage or favor to the paying party detrimental to the due administration of justice, [25] in fact lacks particularity. It is devoid of material details to enable Almarvez to intelligently meet the same. As for the charges of neglect of duty, discourtesy and insubordination which were echoed in the affidavits of court personnel, they are also too general to support a conviction and are contrary to what is reflected in his performance rating that he cooperated willingly, even wholeheartedly, with his fellow employees. On the charge of violation of Rep. Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act): Absent any evidence to support the charge, the affiants-jail officers who claimed to have witnessed Almarvez receive money from detention prisoners in exchange for the release of their Release Orders not having been presented, hence, their claim remains hearsay, Almarvez' categorical denial and counter-allegation that these affiants executed their affidavits only out of fear of or favor to Judge Paas gain light. As for the charge that Almarvez would merely sign the logbook and would thereafter leave the office, again Judge Paas failed to present the affiant-Clerk of Court Atty. Pedro C. Doctolero, Jr. While she submitted in evidence a copy of her October 6, 2000 memorandum [26] requiring Almarvez to explain why he was not in the office on September 8, 11, and 13, and October 5, 2000, despite his affixing of his signature in the logbook on those dates indicating that he reported for work, Almarvez satisfactorily explained that on September 8, 11, and 13, 2000, he submitted himself to drug testing as required by her in her September 7, 2000 [27] memorandum, which explanation is supported by the September 14, 2000 letter of Dr. Rosendo P. Saulog, Medical Specialist II of the Dangerous Drug Board. [28] As to his whereabouts on October 5, 2000, Almarvez' explanation that he was actually present in the morning but left in the afternoon for the Supreme Court [29] was not controverted. On the charge of inefficiency , this Court concurs with the following findings of the OCA that he should be faulted therefor: The performance ratings of respondent Almarvez for three (3) rating