En
banc
RONCESVALLES B. A.M. No. P-04-1815
FILOTEO, (Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-1885-P)
Complainant,
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
-v e r s u s- AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIO
MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA and
REYES, JJ.
ARTURO
C. CALAGO,
Process
Server,
Regional
Trial Court,
Office
of the Clerk of Court,
Isabela
City, Basilan,
Respondent. Promulgated:
October 18,
2007
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PER CURIAM:
In a report-complaint dated September 8, 2003, complainant Roncesvalles
B. Filoteo, former clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Office of
the Clerk of Court (OCC), Isabela City, Basilan,[1]
charged respondent Arturo C. Calago, process server of the same office, with
dishonesty.
The
complainant alleged that one of the children of the late Oscar R. Zanoria (who
died on June 13, 2003), former deputy sheriff of the OCC, informed her that an
employee of the court tried to encash the check of the deceased in Lim Wai
Store in Isabela City owned by Pilar Lim.
This was corroborated by Bernard Estrada, deputy sheriff of the RTC,
Isabela City, Branch 1, who said that Lim told him that respondent presented to
her a check issued on July 31, 2003 to the deceased Zanoria, for encashment,
but knowing that the latter had already passed away, she refused.
Upon
verification, the complainant learned that a letter dated July 24, 2003 had
been prepared by Soteria S. Latip, officer-in-charge of the OCC. It was
addressed to Antonina A. Soria, officer-in-charge of the Financial Management
Office, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Supreme Court (SC) and contained
the deceased's salary check[2]
with check no. 0004733013 amounting to P5,417.48. The letter containing
the check was given to respondent for
mailing.[3]
On July 25, 2003, respondent gave
registry receipt no. 2085 to Arlyn Rufino, clerk III of the OCC, who pasted it
on the copy of the letter on file.
However, the Isabela City post office issued a certification that no
letter addressed to Soria was registered in the mail on July 25, 2003 and that
registry receipt no. 2085 referred to a letter sent by respondent to the “Chief
of Small Loans Division,”[4]
Finance Division, SC.
In
his defense, respondent, in a letter dated July 31, 2003, explained that
registry receipt no. 2085 was issued by the post office when he mailed the
letter (along with the check) addressed to Soria and that the post office cash
clerk, Irene Rufino, affixed her initials on his logbook affirming that said
registry receipt referred to the letter addressed to Soria. Respondent likewise narrated that on the same
day, he separately mailed his loan application but this personal mail did not
have a return card. Respondent stated that he attached a copy of a statement of
mailing to support his claim.
Not
satisfied with respondent’s explanation, the complainant sent him a letter
dated August 4, 2003, furnishing him a copy of the certification issued by the
Isabela City post office that, on July 25, 2003, respondent sent only one
registered mail addressed to the “Chief of Small Loans Division,” for which he
was issued registry receipt no. 2085. The same letter pointed out that the
initials of Rufino in respondent’s logbook merely showed he submitted registry
receipt no. 2085, on which the name of Soria was written. It was the duty of Rufino to attach registry
receipts to the letters she was tasked to mail.
The complainant also told respondent
that he falsely stated in his explanation that he submitted a statement of
mailing (which he did not) and that it was the office which secured a machine
copy thereof from the post office.
Respondent was likewise informed that the complainant personally
verified the truth concerning his attempt to encash the subject check, a fact
confirmed by Lim herself who even told respondent, “Muerto ya el hente”
(“The person is already dead”).
In
reply to the complainant's letter-inquiry dated August 4, 2003, Virginia C.
Valdez-Togle, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Checks Disbursement Officer,
OCA, in a letter dated August 28, 2003, stated that the OCA had no record of receipt of the
subject check.[5] Furthermore, in a letter dated September 16,
2003, Soria informed the complainant that the check had already been encashed
or negotiated on August 4, 2003, as certified to by the Land Bank of the
Philippines.[6]
In
a resolution of this Court dated May 5, 2004, the complaint was referred to
Judge Danilo M. Bucoy, executive judge of RTC, Isabela City, for investigation,
report and recommendation.
In
compliance with this resolution, Judge Bucoy submitted his report and
recommendation dated November 5, 2004 with the following recommendation:
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, the undersigned investigating officer finds
Respondent Arturo C. Calago guilty of grave misconduct and, after taking into
account his length of service of almost 30 years as a mitigating circumstance,
hereby recommends to the Honorable Supreme Court that he be meted the penalty
of [six months suspension] without pay.[7]
During
the investigation, respondent admitted that on July 25, 2003, he went to Lim
Wai Store, bringing along five checks including Zanoria's check. After encashing the four checks (for himself
and his co-employees), he asked Lim, “Si muerto ya el hente, ta cambia pa
kamo el cheques?” (If the person is
already dead, will you still encash the checks?) He said he propounded this question because
he heard that someone, for several years, had been encashing the checks of dead
persons with Lim. He also claimed that
his personal letter addressed to the “Chief of Small Loans Division” was
covered by registry receipt no. 2084.
Later, however, it was discovered that registry receipt no. 2084
pertained to a letter addressed to the OCA by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
(MCTC) of Maluso-Sumisip-Lantawan.[8]
The
OCA, in its memorandum dated February 20, 2007, agreed with the findings of the
investigating judge. It recommended that
respondent be held liable for grave misconduct, falsification and dishonesty
based on the following facts: (1) respondent attempted to encash the check of
the deceased Zanoria in the store of Lim on July 25, 2003; (2) he did not mail
the letter (containing the check) to Soria; (3) to cover up his act of dishonesty,
he made it appear that that the letter to Soria was covered by registry receipt
no. 2085 when in fact this actually pertained to his personal loan application;
(4) in another attempt to conceal his wrongdoing, he claimed that his personal
letter was covered by registry receipt no. 2084 which actually referred to a
letter sent by the MCTC of Maluso-Sumisip-Lantawan and (5) since the check had
been encashed, it was reasonable to assume that respondent did so for his
personal benefit. Thus, the OCA
recommended that he be dismissed from the service and that he be ordered to pay
the amount of P5,417.48 representing the value of the check.
We
agree with the OCA’s recommendations.
Public office is a public trust.[9] A public servant must bear at all times the
highest sense of honesty. This is
especially significant for employees in the judiciary. The image of a court of
justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of its
personnel, from the judge to the lowest employee. Hence, those involved in the administration
of justice must live up to the highest standard of honesty and integrity in the
public service.[10] Not only must their conduct at all times be
characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, it must be beyond
suspicion.[11]
There is substantial evidence to support the finding that respondent never
sent the letter containing the check of Zanoria and that he encashed the check
for his own personal benefit.
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof
necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. Well-entrenched is the rule
that substantial proof, and not clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond
reasonable doubt, is sufficient as basis for the imposition of any disciplinary
action upon the employee. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied
where the employer, as in this case the Court, has reasonable ground to believe
that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his participation
therein renders him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.[12]
The duty of a process server is vital to the administration of justice.
He serves court processes such as subpoenas, subpoenas duces tecum,
summonses, court orders and notices; prepares and submits returns of service of
processes; monitors messages and/or delivers court mail matters like letters,
communications and other correspondences; keeps in custody and maintains a
record book of all mail matters received and dispatched by the court and
performs such other duties as may be assigned by the presiding judge or clerk
of court.[13]
Respondent's act of pocketing Zanoria's check instead of
mailing it to the letter's addressee and later on encashing it for his own
benefit constituted grave misconduct.
Misconduct has been defined as an
intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of
behavior, especially by a government official. As distinguished from simple
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or
flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave
misconduct. Corruption, as an element of
grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who
unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit
for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.[14]
Stealing the check and encashing it
is considered gross dishonesty.[15] We have defined dishonesty as the disposition
to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack
of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness;
disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.[16]
Grave misconduct and dishonesty are
both grave offenses. They carry the
extreme penalty of dismissal from the service, even for the first offense,[17]
with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and
perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government service.[18]
Respondent also falsified a statement of mailing in order to conceal his
wrongdoing. This can only exacerbate his
liability.
In some cases, the Court refrained
from imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal in the presence of mitigating
factors.[19]
Circumstances such as the respondent's length of service in the judiciary,
acknowledgment of his or her infractions, feeling of remorse and family
situations, among other things, have had varying degrees of influence on the
Court's determination of the imposable penalty.[20] However, we see no reason for leniency in
this case. Respondent never expressed any
remorse for his acts and went to great lengths to cover up his wrongdoing. His 30 years of service in the judiciary[21]
should have made him more conscious of the exacting standards required of its
employees.
Being among those at the grassroots of our judicial machinery, process
servers are in close contact with litigants, hence, their conduct should all
the more maintain the prestige and the integrity of the Court.[22] For failing to live up to these standards,
respondent should be dismissed. The
Court cannot countenance any conduct, act or omission, committed by those
involved in administering justice, which violates the norm of public
accountability and which erodes the faith of the people in the judiciary.[23]
WHEREFORE, Arturo C. Calago, process server of
the Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court of Isabela City,
Basilan, is hereby found GUILTY of grave misconduct, falsification and
gross dishonesty. He is ordered DISMISSED
from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except
accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or
instrumentality of the government, including government owned or controlled
corporations. The Office of
Administrative Services is directed to deduct from his accrued leave credits,
if any, the amount of P5,417.48 representing the face value of the check
he dishonestly encashed.
SO ORDERED.
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
|
|
MA. ALICIA M.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice |
[1] She is now judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Isabela City (the exact branch was not indicated); rollo, pp. 125 and 127.
[2] Id., p. 28.
[3] The check was one of those issued on July 31, 2003 for the salaries of the judge and personnel of the RTC. It was being returned to the OCA since the payee, Zanoria, died on June 13, 2003; id., pp. 15 and 35.
[4] No such Division exists in the Supreme Court.
[5] Id., p. 27.
[6] Id., p. 29.
[7] Id., p. 146.
[8] Id., p. 143.
[9] Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 1.
[10] Reyes v. Cabrera, A.M. No. P-05-2027, 27 January 2006, 480 SCRA 257, 263-264, citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Julian, A.M. No. P-01-1515, 10 February 2005, 450 SCRA 588; Office of the Court Administrator v. Besa, A.M. No. P-02-1551, 11 September 2002, 388 SCRA 558.
[11] Re: Final Report on the Financial Audit Conducted at the Municipal Trial Court of Midsayap, North Cotabato, A.M. No. 05-8-233-MTC, 31 January 2006, 481 SCRA 12, 16.
[12] Re: (1) Lost Checks Issued to the Late Roderick Roy P. Melliza and (2) Dropping from the Rolls of Ms. Esther T. Andres, A.M. No. 2005-26-SC, 22 November 2006, 507 SCRA 478, 496, citing Inocencio D. Ebero and Juanito D. Ebero v. Makati City Sheriffs Raul T. Camposano and Bayani T. Acle, A.M. No. P-04-1792, 12 March 2004, 425 SCRA 420; Francisco Reyno v. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 148105, 22 July 2004, 434 SCRA 660.
[13] Rodriguez v. Eugenio, A.M. No. P-06-2216, 20 April 2007, citing the Manuals for Clerks of Court, p. 33.
[14] Vertudes v. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 153166, 16 December 2005, 478 SCRA 210, 233-234, citing Civil Service Commission v. Belagan, G.R. No. 132164, 19 October 2004, 440 SCRA 578, 599.
[15] Layosa v. Salamanca, A.M. No. P-03-1702, 29 July 2003, 407 SCRA 329, 336; Court Administrator v. Sevillo, A. M. No. P-95-1159, 20 March 1997, 270 SCRA 190, 192.
[16] Supra note 12 at 497, citing Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Sec. I & Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Off. Clerk of Court, A.M. No. 2001-7-SC & No. 2001-8-SC, 22 July 2005, 464 SCRA 1.
[17] Rule IV, Section 52-A (1) and (6) of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases promulgated by the CSC through Resolution No. 99-1936 dated August 31, 1999 and implemented by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999; Concerned Employee v. Generoso, A.M. No. 2004-33-SC, 24 August 2005, 467 SCRA 614, 624 .
[18] Sections 22 (a) and 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), as amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999 (a).
[19] Servino v. Adolfo, A.M. No. P-06-2204, 30 November 2006, 509 SCRA 42, 53-54, citations omitted.
[20] Id, pp. 54-56, citing Re: Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the First Semester of 2005, A.M. No. 2005-25-SC, 6 July 2006, 494 SCRA 422.
[21] Rollo, p. 146.
[22] Chiong v. Baloloy, A.M. No. P-01-1523, 27 October 2006, 505 SCRA 528, 535, citing Cabanatan v. Molina, 421 Phil. 664, 674 (2001).
[23] Office of the Court Administrator v. Breta, A.M. No. P-05-2023, 6 March 2006, 484 SCRA 114, 118, citing Re: Falsification of Daily Time Records of Maria Fe P. Brooks, Court Interpreter, RTC, Br. 96, Quezon City and Andria Forteza-Crisostomo, Clerk III, RTC, Br. 39, Manila, A.M. No. P-05-2086, 20 October 2005, 473 SCRA 483, 488.