A.M. No. P-11-2979.  November 18, 2014.

*
(formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3352-P)
 
ELLA M. BARTOLOME, complainant, vs. ROSALIE B.
MARANAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, IMUS, CAVITE, respondent.

Remedial Law; Evidence; Electronic Evidence; Ephemeral

Electronic Communications; Words and Phrases; Ephemeral
electronic communications are now admissible evidence, subject to
certain conditions. “Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to
telephone conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions,
streaming audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained.—
Ephemeral electronic communications are now admissible
evidence, subject to certain conditions. “Ephemeral electronic
communication” refers to telephone conversations, text messages,
chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other
electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not
recorded or retained. It may be proven by the testimony of a
person who was a party to the communications or has personal
knowledge thereof. In the present case, we have no doubt
regarding the probative value of the text messages as evidence in
considering the present case. The complainant, who was the
recipient of the text messages and who therefore has personal
knowledge of these text messages, identified the respondent as
the sender through cell phone number 09175775982. The
respondent herself admitted that her conversations with the
complainant had been thru SMS messaging and that the cell
phone number reflected in the complainant’s cell phone from
which the text messages originated was hers. She confirmed that
it was her cell phone number during the entrapment operation
the Imus Cavite Police conducted.
Same; Same; Same; Administrative Matter No. 01-7-01-SC;
Under Section 1, Rule 11 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, audio,
photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions
shall be admissible provided it shall be shown, presented or
displayed to the court and shall be identified, explained or
authenticated by the per-

_______________
 *  EN BANC.

492

492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Maranan

son who made the recording or by some other person

competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.—Under Section 1,
Rule 11 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, audio, photographic and video
evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible
provided it shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court
and shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person
who made the recording or by some other person competent to
testify on the accuracy thereof.
Administrative Law; Court Personnel; As a public servant,
nothing less than the highest sense of honesty and integrity is
expected of the respondent at all times; By soliciting money from
the complainant, she committed a crime and an act of serious
impropriety that tarnished the honor and dignity of the judiciary
and deeply affected the people’s confidence in it.—As a public
servant, nothing less than the highest sense of honesty and
integrity is expected of the respondent at all times. She should be
the personification of the principle that public office is a public
trust. The respondent unfortunately fell extremely short of the
standards that should have governed her life as a public servant.
By soliciting money from the complainant, she committed a
crime and an act of serious impropriety that tarnished the
honor and dignity of the judiciary and deeply affected the people’s
confidence in it. She committed an ultimate betrayal of the duty
to uphold the dignity and authority of the judiciary by peddling
influence to litigants, thereby creating the impression that
decision can be bought and sold.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

Extortion, Graft and Corruption, Gross Misconduct and
Conduct Unbecoming of a Court  Employee.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

 
PER CURIAM:
 
This administrative matter started through the sworn
affidavit-complaint1 in the vernacular, dated December 16,
2009, that Ella M. Bartolome (complainant) filed against
Rosalie B. Maranan [respondent, Court Stenographer III,
Regional Trial

493

VOL. 740, NOVEMBER 18, 2014 493

Bartolome vs. Maranan

 
Court (RTC), Branch 20, Imus, Cavite], charging her
with extortion, graft and corruption, gross misconduct and
conduct unbecoming of a court employee.
The complainant alleged that the respondent asked
money from her in the amount of P200,000.00, which was
later reduced to P160,000.00, to facilitate the filing of her
case for annulment of marriage. She further alleged that
the respondent undertook to have the case decided in her
favor without the need of court appearances during the
proceedings of the case.
For a clear and complete picture of the accusations
against the respondent, we quote verbatim the pertinent
portions of the complainant’s narration of the incidents
that gave rise to the filing of the present administrative
complaint —

x x x x
2.  Na noong October 21, 2009 nakilala ko si ROSALIE
MARANAN na isang stenographer sa Regional Trial Court ng
Imus, Cavite. Nasabihan ko siya ng aking kagustuhan na
magsampa ng annulment of marriage case. Agad niya akong
inalok at pinangakuan na kaya niyang ipasok ang aking
annulment case sa RTC, Br. 20, Imus, Cavite kung saan siya
nagtratrabaho. Noong una ang hinihingi niya sa akin ay
halagang TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00)
pero humingi ako sa kanya ng discount at pumayag siya sa ONE
HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS (P160,000.00). Ako po ay
naengganyo na magtiwala sa kanya dahil nangako siya na siya
na ang bahala sa lahat. May kausap na daw siyang abogado na
pipirma sa petisyon ko at di ko na daw kailangan pang umappear
sa korte. Sinabi niya na malakas daw siya sa judge at sa fiscal at
siya lang daw ang pinapayagan na magpasok ng mga aaregluhin
na kaso sa kanilang korte. Sinabi niya din na kasama na sa
P160,000.00 ang para sa judge at sa fiscal kaya siguradong
maaaprubahan ang aking annulment case sa mabilis na panahon.
Kasama po ng Affidavit-Complaint na ito ang transcript at ang
SIM Card

_______________
 1  Rollo, pp. 7-11.

494

494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Maranan

 
 

ay aking ipadadala kapag ako ay makasigurado na ang Korte

Suprema ay poprotektahan ang mga ebidensya laban kay
MARANAN sapagkat rito lahat nakatagon (sic) ang mga text
messages at nakarecord lahat ng calls nitong si ROSALIE
MARANAN sa akin na nagpapatunay ng panghihingi niya sa
akin ng pera at pangako na aaregluhin niya ang aking annulment
of marriage case. Ang cell phone number po na nag-aappear dito
sa SIM ay kay ROSALINA MARANAN, ang numero niya ay
09175775982. Maaaring nagpalit na ng numero ang inirereklamo
ko kung kaya’t maganda rin na ipag-utos ang pag-alam ng detalye
mula sa Globe Telecoms kung saan post-paid subscriber ang may-
ari ng numero na iyan. [Emphasis supplied]

 
To put an end to the respondent’s extortion activities,
the complainant decided to report the matter to the police
authorities. During the entrapment operation conducted by
police officers of Imus Police Station, the respondent was
apprehended inside the premises of the RTC, Branch 20,
Imus, Cavite, in the act of receiving the money from the
complainant.
In support of her allegations, the complainant attached
to her affidavit-complaint the transcribed electronic
communications (text messages) between her and the
respondent;2 a copy of an Electronic Psychiatric History
form given to her by the respondent for her to accomplish
in filing the petition for annulment of marriage;3 a copy of
the Imus Police Station Blotter showing that the
respondent was apprehended during the entrapment
operation conducted by police officers of Imus Police
Station on November 11, 2009 at 2:40 p.m.;4 and a versatile
compact disc (VCD) containing the video taken dur-

_______________

2  Id., at pp. 13-19.

3  Id., at p. 20.
4  Id., at pp. 71-73.
 495

VOL. 740, NOVEMBER 18, 2014 495

Bartolome vs. Maranan

 
ing the entrapment operation conducted against the
respondent.5
The Court, in a 1st Indorsement6 dated March 19, 2010,
required the respondent to comment on the complaint
against her.
In her Comment dated May 27, 2010,7 the respondent
denied the accusations against her. She alleged her belief
that Bartolome is a fictitious name as the affidavit-
complaint does not indicate the complainant’s exact
address. She asserted that her detention at Imus Police
Station does not prove her culpability since no actual
criminal charges were filed against her. She claimed that
the lapse of six (6) months from the time of the alleged
incident indicates that the complaint is pure and simple
harassment orchestrated by a lawyer or litigant who has a
grudge against her and who wants to publicly besmirch her
reputation. In support of her defense, the respondent
mentioned that even Judge Fernando L. Felicen (Judge
Felicen), Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite
interceded for her release from detention.
On July 29, 2010, the complainant sent a letter to the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA),8 without
indicating her address, alleging that she has to constantly
change residence because unidentified persons had been
seen in their neighborhood asking questions about her. She
has also been receiving text messages from the respondent
telling her that her complaint would only be dismissed
because she knows people in the Supreme Court. The
respondent also threatened retaliation against her after the
case is terminated. The complainant further claimed that
the pieces of evidence she submitted are sufficient to prove
the respondent’s anomalous

_______________

5  Id., at pp. 21-22.

6  Id., at p. 23.
7  Id., at pp. 26-30.
8  Id., at p. 36.

496
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bartolome vs. Maranan

 
activities, and prayed for the immediate resolution of
her complaint.
Based on the complainant’s pleadings and evidence, the
OCA, (through then Deputy Court Administrator Nimfa C.
Vilches and OCA Chief of Legal Office Wilhelmina D.
Geronga) submitted its Report to the Court dated May 9,
2011,9 finding enough evidence to prove the respondent’s
involvement in anomalous activities and recommending
that —
1) OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3352-P be RE-DOCKETED as a
regular administrative matter;
2) respondent Rosalie B. Maranan, Court Stenographer
III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, be
found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service; and
3) respondent Maranan be immediately DISMISSED
from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits
except her accrued leave credits, and with perpetual
disqualification from employment in any government
agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned
and -controlled corporations.
In a Resolution dated September 5, 2011,10 the Court
required the parties to manifest whether they were willing
to submit their case for resolution on the basis of the
pleadings filed. The respondent filed her Manifestation
dated November 17, 201111 submitting the case for
resolution by the Court. She reiterated her complete
innocence and “vigorous” and “vehement” denial of the
allegations against her. She insisted that the present
complaint against her is plain and simple harassment and
a vexatious suit by the complainant who either has a
grudge against her or must have been used by another

_______________

9   Id., at pp. 41-49.

10  Id., at p. 75.
11  Id., at pp. 78-80.

 
497

VOL. 740, NOVEMBER 18, 2014 497

 Bartolome vs. Maranan

 
person with a grudge against her. All she did was to
secure the services of a lawyer at the complainant’s
request; this act, she claimed, does not constitute graft and
corruption, gross misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a
court employee and extortion.
The complainant did not respond to our September 5,
2011 Resolution as it was returned unserved on her. We
nevertheless considered the case submitted for resolution
considering her letter of July 16, 2010 praying for the
immediate resolution of her complaint.
In our Internal Resolution dated December 7, 2011,12 we
resolved to refer the complaint to the OCA for evaluation,
report and recommendation.
The OCA responded through its Memorandum of July
16, 2012,13 finding that the pieces of evidence on record
establish the guilt of the respondent on the charges of
Gross Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service filed against her. It recommended
that the respondent be found guilty of the offenses charged
and be dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of
retirement benefits except her accrued leave credits and
with perpetual disqualification from employment in any
government agency.
The Court fully agrees with the OCA’s
recommendation.
The respondent’s bare denial cannot overcome the
evidence supporting the complainant’s accusation that she
demanded money on the promise that she would facilitate
the annulment of her (complainant’s) marriage. The
respondent’s actions from the time the complainant started
communicating with her on October 21, 2009 and
thereafter through a series of messages they exchanged via
SMS,14 until the entrapment operation on November 11,
2009, showed that the complaint

_______________

12  Id., at p. 86.
13  Id., at pp. 89-97.
14  Short Messages Service.

498

498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Maranan
  
is indeed meritorious. The respondent’s text messages
sent to the complainant corroborate that she promised to
expedite — in exchange for a monetary consideration of
P160,000.00 and that she would provide the lawyer who
would file the annulment case — the complainant’s
annulment case once it is filed:15

21/10/09 8:40p.m.
Sino po to
21/10/09 8:53p.m.
Sino nagrefer sayo sakin ano pangalan?
21/10/09 8:54p.m.
San mo nakuha # ko
21/10/09 9:05p.m.
Ako rin magbibigay lawyer sayo
21/10/09 9:13p.m.
D kaba tlaga makakatawag ngayon
21/10/09 9:18p.m.
Ako n lang tatawag sayo kc mahirap ang txt lang
21/10/09 9:24p.m.
Tawag n lng ako ha
21/10/09 9:49p.m.
Natitiwala ako sayo ha dahil hindi lahat pinagbibigyan
namin. Sally n lang tawag mo sakin nagtataka lng kc ako kanina
kc buong buong buo yung txt ng name ko e.
21/10/09 9:51p.m.
Ay sorry mali pala sabi ko sayo 160k pala singil namin
22/10/09 10:05a.m.
Gud am. Ano pwede k bukas

_______________

15  Rollo, p. 13.

499

VOL. 740, NOVEMBER 18, 2014 499

Bartolome vs. Maranan

 
 

22/10/09 10:25a.m.
ls txt bak naghihintay po kme
22/10/09 10:51a.m.
Bukas lng available si atty
 22/10/09 10:56a.m.
Sana kung makakagawa ka daw paraan bukas kahit 40k n lng
muna down tapos 3pm bukas
22/10/09 11:04a.m.
Ok pero d kita pilipilit ha nasayo pa din and decision yan ang
sakin lng kc nagmamadali k at tsaka yun ang free time ng lawyer
ha
22/10/09 11:11a.m.
Ella pakihusto mo n daw pala 50k at ibabayad daw muna sa
psychiatrist at osg kahit sa susunod n lng daw yung sa kanya
22/10/09 1:09p.m.

 
The complainant described the respondent as an
influence peddler in the courts of Imus, Cavite who acts as
a conduit to judges, prosecutors and private law
practitioners.
In her comment to the complaint, the respondent
admitted that “she suggested to the complainant the name
of a lawyer friend, Atty. Renante C. Bihasa (Atty. Bihasa),
and forwarded to her the cell phone number of this lawyer
so that they could discuss the case.” While she was in
detention at Imus Police Station, she called Atty. Bihasa,
who told her that he was on his way and assured her that
he had already asked his lawyer friends to assist her. Atty.
Bihasa arrived at about five o’clock in the afternoon. As it
was already beyond office hours, she was told by Atty.
Bihasa of the possibility that she would be detained
pending investigation. Atty. Bihasa returned the following
day and was joined by Judge Felicen and her officemates.
Judge Felicen interceded in her behalf that she be given
permission by the police officers to leave her detention

500

500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Maranan

 
in order to take a bath and change clothes. She was
granted permission, with the full guaranty of Judge Felicen
that she would return.16
In an affidavit17 dated May 28, 2010, Atty. Bihasa
corroborated the respondent’s allegations. In his affidavit,
he narrated that upon receiving a call from the respondent
that she was being detained, he immediately called up two
(2) of his lawyer friends based at Imus, Atty. Wilfredo P.
Saquilayan and Atty. Jose Emmanuel Montoya, to assist
the respondent. As he arrived at Imus Police Station at
around past four o’clock in the afternoon, he told the
respondent of the probability of her detention until formal
charges were filed against her. According to him, “[he] took
it upon [himself] to assist [the respondent] on that date and
accompanied her while the police officers of Imus PNP were
doing their routine work on suspects.”
Atty. Bihasa further narrated that on the next day at
about five o’clock in the afternoon, he went back to Imus
Police Station to wait for the complainant. After a few
hours, the respondent’s coworkers, including Judge Felicen
arrived. They waited for the complainant until seven
o’clock in the evening but she failed to come. Only the
complainant’s lawyer arrived who informed the police
investigator that the complainant cannot come out of fear
because of the death threats she received.18
The concern that Atty. Bihasa and Judge Felicen
showed to the respondent while under detention at Imus
PNP Station gives rise to the suspicion that they have
knowledge and tolerate the respondent’s anomalous
activities. The respondent’s text messages to the
complainant support this suspicion:19

_______________

16  Id., at p. 29.
17  Id., at pp. 31-33.
18  Id., at p. 33.
19  Id., at p. 18.

501

VOL. 740, NOVEMBER 18, 2014 501

Bartolome vs. Maranan

At tsaka alam mo naman nakailang appointment n tayo sa

abogado hiyang hiya nga ako kahapon e
7/11/09 3:13p.m.
Tawagan ko muna si judge kung pwede pa kami tumanggap
hanggang wed
7/11/09 3:15p.m.
Try ko lng
7/11/09 3:25p.m.
Hanggang Tuesday na lg tayo after nun nxt year na. Yan ang
sabi
7/11/09 3:28p.m.
 Sayang kc ang haba n ng time mo dp natuloy sabi ko naman
sayo e kapag inabot ng naghigpit dn pwede none appearance. Yun
nagan nagpatulong sakin kahapon lng tumawag yun d sana
nagka sabay n kayo
7/11/09 3:59p.m.
Ok po mit po tayo bukas 10 am sinabi ko napo kay atty. Tnx po.
See you po

 
Ephemeral electronic communications are now
admissible evidence, subject to certain conditions.
“Ephemeral electronic communication” refers to telephone
conversations, text messages, chatroom sessions, streaming
audio, streaming video, and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is not recorded or
retained.20 It may be proven by the testimony of a person
who was a party to the communications or has personal
knowledge thereof.21 In the present case, we have no doubt
regarding the probative value of the text messages as
evidence in considering the present case. The complainant,
who was the recipient of the text messages and who
therefore has personal knowledge of these text messages,

_______________

20   Sec. 1(k), Rule 2, A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC – Re: Rules on Electronic

Evidence, dated July 17, 2001.
21  Id., Section 2, Rule 11.

502

502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Maranan

 
identified the respondent as the sender through cell
phone number 09175775982. The respondent herself
admitted that her conversations with the complainant had
been thru SMS messaging and that the cell phone number
reflected in the complainant’s cell phone from which the
text messages originated was hers. She confirmed that it
was her cell phone number during the entrapment
operation the Imus Cavite Police conducted22 —

Sally:
Halika dito sa office, sa clerk of court. Pupunta ka ngayon? O
sige, sige, pupunta ka ngaun? Ah sige OK, salamat! Ang number
ko …
 Lalaki:
Ibigay ko sa kanya?
Sally:
Oo, ang number ko ay 09175775982, ok thank you.

 
The complainant submitted two (2) copies of the VCD23
containing pictures taken during the entrapment
conducted by the Imus Cavite Police on November 11,
2009.24
Under Section 1, Rule 11 of A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, audio,
photographic and video evidence of events, acts or
transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be shown,
presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified,
explained or authenticated by the person who made the
recording or by some other person competent to testify on
the accuracy thereof.
We viewed the VCD and the video showed the actual
entrapment operation. The complainant herself certified
that the video and text messages are evidence of her
complaint

_______________

22  Rollo, p. 51.
23  Id., at pp. 21-22.
24  Id., at pp. 2-3 and 69-70.

503

VOL. 740, NOVEMBER 18, 2014 503

Bartolome vs. Maranan

 
against the respondent, “Sapat at malinaw ang lahat ng
ebidensya na kasama ng aking reklamo na nagpapatunay
na totoo lahat ang nakasaad sa aking reklamo. Kitang kita
sa video at sa mga text messages niya ang kanyang modus
operandi at paggamit niya ng pwesto sa gobyerno upang
makapanghingi ng malaking pera sa mga inosenteng tao.”
It is also well to remember that in administrative cases,
technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly
applied.25 A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC specifically provides that
these rules shall be liberally construed to assist the parties
in obtaining a just, expeditious and inexpensive
determination of cases.
The Court totally agrees with the OCA’s finding that the
respondent is guilty of grave misconduct and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The
respondent’s assertion that Bartolome is a fictitious name
because the complainant has not stated in her complaint
her exact address is preposterous in light of the evidence of
direct personal and text message contacts between them.
In the absence of supporting evidence, the claim that the
complaint against her is pure and simple harassment
orchestrated by persons with grudge against her, is mere
conjectural allegation.
As a public servant, nothing less than the highest sense
of honesty and integrity is expected of the respondent at all
times.26 She should be the personification of the principle
that public office is a public trust.27 The respondent
unfortunately fell extremely short of the standards that
should have governed her life as a public servant. By
soliciting money from the complainant, she committed a
crime and an act of serious impropriety that tarnished
the honor and dignity of the judiciary and deeply affected
the people’s confidence in it. She committed an ultimate
betrayal of the duty to uphold the

_______________

25  Nuez v. Cruz-Apao, A.M. No. CA-05-18-P, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA
288, 300.
26  Narag v. Manio, A.M. No. P-08-2579, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 206,
211.
27  Id.

504

504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Maranan

 
dignity and authority of the judiciary by peddling
influence to litigants, thereby creating the impression that
decision can be bought and sold.28
The Court has never wavered in its vigilance in
eradicating the so-called “bad-eggs” in the judiciary.29 We
have been resolute in our drive to discipline and, if
warranted, to remove from the service errant magistrates,
employees and even Justices of higher collegiate appellate
courts for any infraction that gives the Judiciary a bad
name. To stress our earnestness in this pursuit, we have,
in fact, been unflinching in imposing discipline on errant
personnel or in purging the ranks of those undeserving to
remain in the service.30
 WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Rosalie B.
Maranan, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, GUILTY of Grave Misconduct
and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service
and is accordingly DISMISSED from the service, with
prejudice to reemployment in any government agency
including government-owned or -controlled corporations.
Her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits are
ordered forfeited. This decision shall be immediately
executory.
The Court further Resolves to REQUIRE Judge
Fernando L. Felicen, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20,
Imus, Cavite and Atty. Renante C. Bihasa, to file their
Comments on their alleged participation in the anomalous
activities of the respondent, within fifteen (15) days from
notice. This directive is without prejudice to the
investigation of all or

_______________

28  Canlas-Bartolome v. Manio, A.M. No. P-07-2397, December 4, 2007,

539 SCRA 333, 339-340; Narag v. Manio, id., at pp. 211-212; Mendoza v.
Tiongson, A.M. No. P-90-454, December 17, 1996, 265 SCRA 653, 655; and
Fabian v. Galo, A.M. No. P-96-1214, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 375, 379.
29  Mendoza v. Tiongson, id., and Fabian v. Galo, id.
30  Fabian v. Galo, id.; Mallonga v. Manio, A.M. No. P-07-2298, April
24, 2009, 586 SCRA 335, 341.

505

VOL. 740, NOVEMBER 18, 2014 505

Bartolome vs. Maranan

 
selected employees and officials of the Branch, who may
have participated in anomalous transactions relating to
annulment of marriage.
The Office of the Court Administrator is hereby directed
to submit to this Court, within thirty (30) days, a list of the
annulment of marriage decisions of Judge Fernando L.
Felicen for the past ten (10) years, indicating therein the
judgments made and the names of participating lawyers
and prosecutors.
The Office of the Chief Attorney shall analyze the
submitted data, including the records of and the
proceedings in the listed cases, and recommend to the
Court the actions it should take in the event a pattern of
corruption involving annulment of marriage cases emerges.
 The Office of the Chief Attorney is given ninety (90) days
from receipt of the Office of the Court Administrator’s list,
within which to submit its recommendations to the Court.
The Office of the Court Administrator shall likewise
refer this administrative case and its records to the
Ombudsman for whatever action it may take within its
jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro,

Brion, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes,
Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Peralta and Bersamin, JJ., On Leave.

Respondent Rosalie B. Maranan dismissed for grave

misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits except
accrued leave credits and with prejudice to reemployment in
government service.

506

506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Maranan

Notes.—Soliciting is prohibited under The Code of

Conduct for Court Personnel. (Santos, Jr. vs. Mangahas,
669 SCRA 599 [2012])
Under Section 52(A)(11) of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules
on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dismissal is
the penalty for improper solicitation for the first offense.
(Consolacion vs. Gambito, 675 SCRA 452 [2012])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.