G.R. No. P-07-2363. July 31, 2008. Concerned Court Employee, Complainant, vs. Atty. Vivian V. Villalon-Lapuz, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 137, Makati City, Respondent.
FACTS

An anonymous complaint was filed against Atty. Vivian V. Villalon-Lapuz, Clerk of Court of the RTC of Makati, Branch 137, for unauthorized practice of law and insubordination. The complainant alleged that the respondent appeared as private counsel in a civil case involving her family. The Supreme Court, through A.M. No. 98-7-217-RTC dated August 4, 1998, had previously authorized her to appear as counsel in that specific case, subject to the conditions that she file corresponding leaves of absence for hearing dates and not use official time for case preparation.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated and found that from 1999 to 2002, the respondent attended 18 court hearings related to the case. The verification of records revealed that she did not file any application for leave of absence for these attendances, in direct violation of the Court’s directive. In her comment, the respondent admitted handling the case for her family due to financial constraints and her promise to her late father. She explained that her immediate superior allowed her to offset absences by working beyond office hours and that she did not use official time for pleadings nor receive remuneration.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Atty. Vivian V. Villalon-Lapuz is guilty of insubordination for failing to file applications for leave of absence for her court appearances as mandated by the Supreme Court’s Resolution.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of insubordination. The Supreme Court found the OCA’s recommendation supported by the records. The Court’s Resolution granting permission to practice law was a lawful order with specific conditions, not a mere request. The respondent’s admitted failure to file the required leave applications for 18 court hearings constituted a flagrant disobedience of this order. Her defense that she was allowed to offset hours by working beyond office time is invalid, as such offsetting is expressly disallowed by civil service rules.
The deliberate disobedience of a lawful order is a less grave offense under the Civil Service Law, punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for a first-time offender. However, as the respondent had already tendered her resignation effective December 1, 2004, the imposition of suspension was no longer feasible. Considering the mitigating circumstances of her being a first-time offender and her ten years of service to the judiciary, the Court exercised its discretion to modify the penalty. Accordingly, the Court found her guilty of insubordination and imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), deductible from any benefits due to her after her resignation.