SECOND DIVISION
SPOUSES ROMAN B. TIPLES, JR. A.M. No. P-05-2039
and MELCHORA
A. TIPLES, (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1985-P) Complainants,
Present:
PUNO, J., Chairman,
- versus
- SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
AZCUNA, and
*GARCIA, JJ.
EVELYN
G. MONTOYO, Court
Stenographer,
RTC-Branch 62, Promulgated:
Respondent. May 31, 2006
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- x
PUNO, J.:
On
The
spouses-complainants were the representatives of the heirs of Francisco and
Barbara Alles, both deceased and owners of a 4.5-hectare
land situated at Brgy. Alijis,
P15,000.00 to cover all expenses. She received P5,000.00
and P10,000.00 from spouses-complainants on September 4 and 11, 2002,
respectively. She assured them that the
new title would be issued on P8,500.00 she was asking for the taxes contending
that they had already delivered the full amount initially agreed upon. Instead, they demanded the return of all their
documents, as well as, the receipts of payments already made. They further asked respondent to return
whatever amount not accounted for in the receipts. Respondent Montoyo
promised to comply with the request but failed.
In his
1st Indorsement of
In her Affidavit/Comment
of P15,000.00 from spouses-complainants to cover the expenses of
the transfer. She explained that she
failed to complete the process of the transfer of the title because
spouses-complainants refused to pay the transfer tax. All that she managed to accomplish was the
publication of the declaration of heirship, which
certificate was delivered to spouses-complainants. She claimed that she returned P3,000.00 to the spouses-complainants upon the termination of
their agreement. She maintained that she
still wanted to facilitate the issuance of the title but that the
spouses-complainants advised her to just coordinate with their representative Tranquilino Machan, Jr.[1]
Respondent
Montoyo asserted that her business with the
spouses-complainants had nothing to do with her official functions as court stenographer. Thus, her liability, if any, must be civil
only and not administrative. She
insisted on her good faith in offering her services to the
spouses-complainants. The non-issuance
of the TCT by the Register of Deeds for the failure of the spouses-complainants
to pay the transfer tax was allegedly beyond her control.[2]
The
Court Administrator, emphasizing that “all judicial officials and employees
should be devoted to their work as to ensure the speedy administration of
justice,” found against respondent Montoyo. He observed that when respondent Montoyo introduced herself as an employee of the RTC of Bago City, she gave the impression that she had some
influence in the issuance of the new title and her representation convinced the
spouses-complainants to secure her services.
Thus, for receiving P17,350.00 from
spouses-complainants and refusing or failing to return the documents and the
unexpended funds to them, which constitute simple misconduct, the Court
Administrator recommended the suspension of respondent Montoyo
for three (3) months with stern warning that commission of a similar act in the
future would be dealt with more drastically.[3]
The
Court agrees with the findings of the Court Administrator.
We
reiterate the rule that respondent Montoyo is an
employee of the court whose conduct must always be beyond reproach and
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let her be free
from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. She is expected to exhibit
the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of her
official duties but also in her personal and private dealings with other people
to preserve the court’s good name and standing.
The
Court finds the behavior and conduct of respondent Montoyo
to be wanting of the exacting standards of ethics and morality imposed upon
court employees. She admitted the
allegations of spouses-complainants that she offered to facilitate the transfer
of title of property for them and that she received money to cover the expenses
of the transfer. These acts put not only
respondent Montoyo but the judiciary as well in a bad
light. For, indeed, spouses-complainants
would not have secured her services if not for her representation that she was
an employee of the court. She created
the impression that she could facilitate the transfer because of her
position. Notwithstanding her claim that
the money the spouses-complainants gave her was for legitimate actual expenses,
her conduct adversely affected the image of the judiciary.
We find
respondent Montoyo guilty of simple misconduct. Section 52(B)(2), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service[4] classifies simple misconduct as a less
grave offense punishable as a first offense by suspension of one (1) month and
one (1) day to six (6) months. The
records show that this is respondent Montoyo’s first
offense.
IN VIEW
WHEREOF, respondent Evelyn G. Montoyo,
Court Stenographer, Regional Trial Court, Branch 62,
SO
ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
(on leave)
CANCIO C.
GARCIA
Associate
Justice