Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

REFUSAL TO OBEY COURT ORDER

Complainant, court employee B, charged Judge A with Refusal to Obey Court Order
when the latter refused to administer her oath of office based on an appointment which
the court was not officially notified due to the pending protest to her application on the
grounds of failure to get favorable indorsement from a Judge and failure to accomplish
the Position Descriptive Form (PDF) which are listed as basic requirements for
application as a court employee.

Was there a Refusal to Obey Court Order? The answer is in the negative.

In Judge Joaquin v. Dela Cruz, A.M. No. P-07-2321, April 24, 2009: Insubordination is
defined as a refusal to obey some order, which a superior officer is entitled to give and
have obeyed. The term imports a willful or intentional disregard of the lawful and
reasonable instructions of the employer.

Complainant failed to present any proof to bolster the charge of Refusal to Obey Court
order relative to the refusal of Judge A to swear complainant as the appointed Clerk of
Court without her complying all the basic requirements in her application for the vacant
position. There was no administrative offense committed by Judge A because the
Supreme Court did not issue a verbal or written order to administer an oath of office to
complainant. There is no such order coming from the employer for Judge A to follow. It
was on June 24, 2010 that Judge A received a copy of the appointment paper of
complainant pertaining to the official release of the appointment of the branch clerk of
court for the trial court from an authorized agent of the employer, it was on June 24,
2010 that the court was officially notified of the questioned appointment, and there was
already a false and malicious criminal complaint dated June 11, 2010 and subscribed
on June 14, 2010 before the Office of the X City Prosecutor lodged by complainant
against Judge A for refusing to administer an oath of office to her. Complainant cannot
claim that she has the right to be sworn into office by Judge A, concealing the fact that
she wanted to dismiss Judge A from the service before the official release of her
appointment.

The criminal complaints of court employee B against Judge A were dismissed by the
Department of Justice two months later from the time of filing by complainant. It is only
in the Philippines where the complainant charged Judge A with administrative case
with a prayer for dismissal then went to Judge As court to administer an oath to her,
1
when refused on just and valid grounds, criminally charged Judge A before the
Prosecutors Office, then took her oath of office before the Executive Judge.
Complainant failed to adduce any proof that Judge A committed Grave Threats, Unjust
Vexation, Grave Coercion, Harassment, Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Official
and Abuse of Authority. The elements of the criminal charges and administrative
offenses are absent.

In Real vs. Belo, G.R. NO. 146224, January 26, 2007: Petitioner's bare allegation is far
from sufficient proof for the Court to rule in her favor. It is basic in the rule of evidence
that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof. In short,
mere allegations are not evidence.

The allegations of complainant against Judge A are not only falsity, they are illogical.
The false accusations of Grave Threats, Unjust Vexation, Grave Coercion, Harassment,
Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Official and Abuse of Authority, aside that these are
mere allegations without evidence, are belied by complainants own allegations, to
quote:
1. Sinikap kung hindi mauwi sa hindi pagkakaunawaan ang aming pag uusap at
minabuti ko na lang na magpasalamat na binigyan niya ako ng pagkakataon na
makaharap at wala akong ibang layunin kundi iparating sa kanya na gusto kung
gampanan ang itinalagang appointment sa akin (Complainants Complaint- Affidavit);
2. In fact, I immediately furnished her a copy of my waiver, so that I can easily move
on to the next chapter of my activities (Complainants Letter);
3. I executed a Waiver/ Notice of withdrawal in connection with my application for
Clerk of Court III. However, after a thorough soul searching, I came to realize, that this
vacant position for Clerk of Court III is a great opportunity for my career advancement
considering that I had been in service for more than 10 years (Complainants Letter).

Nowhere in the above statements of complainant showed that Judge A committed


abuses, coercion, harassment, threats and oppression to her. Logically, complainant will
not insist and persist to apply as Clerk of Court that can be considered as harassment
against Judge A, a position that requires trust and confidence, in the trial court of
Judge A, despite of several valid verbal and written rejection to her application, if the
latter committed abuses, coercion, harassment and threats to her. Complainant even
gave Judge A red roses despite of refusal to her harassing application at her trial
court.

2
Evidence, to be believed, must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness
but must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and
common experience of mankind (Zapatos v. People of the Philippines, G.R Nos.
147814-15, September 16, 2003).

There is no proof of the alleged issuance of verbal threats. In fact, complainant gave red
roses to Judge A despite of refusal of her repeated application for several times.

The actual case is A.M. MTJ 12-1815 Leilani A. Tejero Lopez vs. Judge Eliza B.
Yu.
The charge was reiterated in OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ Eleanor Bayog, Leilani
Tejero - Lopez, Manolo Garcia, Jasmine Lindain, Fetronillo Primacio Jr., Evelyn
Depalobos, Benjie Ore, Erwin Russ Ragasa, Bien Camba, Marlon Suligan, Arnold
Obial, Ronald Quijano, Eduardo Ebreo, Chanda Tolentino, Ronalyn Armarvez, Ma.
Victoria Ocampo, Elizabeth Lipura, Maryann Cayanan, Ma. Luz Dionisio, Maribel
Molina, Edward Eric Santos, Emilio Domine, Ferdinand Molina, Ricardo Lampitoc,
Jerome Aviles, Ana Lea Estacio, Cristina l.ampitoc, Melanie Ragasa, Evangeline
Ching, Lawrence Perez, Edmundo Vergara, Lanie Aguinaldo, Karla Mae
Pacunayen, Domingo Hocosol, Edwin Ubana, Elizabeth Villanueva, lgnacio
Gonzales, Zenaida Geronimo, Soledad Bassig, Marvin Balicuatro, Aida Josefina
lgnacio, Benigno Marzan, Marissa Mashoor Ratsgoor, Marie Luz Obida, Joseph
Pamatpat, Fortunato Diezmo, Norner Villanueva, Edwin Jurok, Fatima Rojas, Armina
Almonte, Anna Marie Francisco, Ma. Cecilia Getrudes Salvador, Zenaida
Geronimo, Virginia Galang, Elsa Garnett, Amor Abad, Emelina San Miguel, Maxima
Sayo, Romer Aviles, Froilan Robert Tomas, Norman Garcia, Dennis Echegoyen vs.
Judge Eliza B. Yu.
The Philippine Supreme Court sustained the legal arguments of Judge Eliza B. Yu
on appeal because the Office of the Court Administrator omitted them in its report
and recommendation dated February 11, 2016.