EN BANC
|
Complainant, -versus- CARINA DIVINAGRACIA
LAGURA, Utility Aide, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-05-1977 [Formerly
OCA I.P.I. No. 03-1761-P] Present: PUNO,
C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO
MORALES, AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
*VELASCO, JR., NACHURA,
and REYES,
JJ. Promulgated: October
9, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
Per Curiam:
By Letter-complaint dated
Culled from the rollo are the
following undisputed facts:
The Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan issued in complainant’s name
Land Bank of the Philippines Check No. 508278 dated P1,223.25 representing reimbursement
for medical expenses incurred during her recent illness.
It surfaced that respondent stole and negotiated the check by procuring on
Respondent later attempted to retrieve the check from the Alturas
Supermarket Corporation to which she suggested that she would pay its cash
equivalent.[3]
The check showed that complainant’s signature thereon was different from
her customary signature.
Thus spawned the filing of the administrative case at bar. In a related move, complainant filed a case
against respondent before the Office of the Prosecutor,
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) repeatedly directed
respondent to file her Comment[4] on
the complaint but nothing was heard from her.
In its
EVALUATION: Respondent was given ample opportunity to be heard but she ignored it. She disobeyed the repeated directives of the Court Administrator requiring her to file her comment to explain her side. By her failure to comment, she is deemed to admit the charge[s] against her. It is an admission by silence which may be given in evidence against her pursuant to Section 32 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court.
As charged, respondent committed the administrative offenses
of grave misconduct and gross dishonesty each of which is a serious offense
which carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture
of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and perpetual
disqualification from employment from the government service. (Civil Service
Rules Sections 52 and 58, Rule IV[;] Judge Veronica A.
Dondiego vs. Petrono D. Cuevas, Jr., etc., A.M. No. P-03-1681,
In its report, the OCA invites the attention of the Court to Judge Layosa v. Salamanca[7]
where the therein respondent stole and encashed the check of Judge Layosa
and despite several opportunities for her to comment on the judge’s complaint, she
failed to do so. Held the Court:
By stealing and encashing the complainant’s check, she blatantly degraded the judiciary and diminished the respect and regard of the people for the court and its personnel. Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, morality and honesty. Like any public servant, she must exhibit the highest sense of trustworthiness and rectitude 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 as a true temple of justice. It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work there, from the judge to the lowest employee. In Court Administrator vs. Sevillo, we lamentably portrayed respondent therein as a common thief for stealing mail matters, just like respondent herein.[8] (Italics in the original; emphasis supplied)
The OCA thus recommended the dismissal of respondent from the government
service.
By Resolution of
Complainant filed her Manifestation/Explanation[11] acknowledging that she received all the
notices issued by this Court, but proffering that since the criminal case
before the City Prosecutor was dismissed in view of her desistance, she had the
“honest belief that this Administrative Case filed was automatically
cancelled.” She manifested that “for
humanitarian reasons” she had no more intention of pursuing the present case.
In complainant’s Affidavit of Desistance before the City Prosecutor,[12]
complainant stated that respondent admitted her unlawful taking of the check
and apologized for the inconvenience, and in exchange for her (complainant’s) withdrawal
of the criminal complaint, respondent promised to voluntarily tender her
“irrevocable resignation from government service effective
This Court finds the recommendation of the OCA well-taken.
The desistance of complainant from
pursuing the present administrative case does not divest the Court of its
disciplinary authority over court personnel.[13] Dionisio
v. Gilera explains:
. . . The overriding need to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary demands that erring personnel be sanctioned, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the [c]omplaints. Indeed, these proceedings do not depend on the whims and caprice of the concerned employees, for the aggrieved party is the court system. The issue in administrative cases is not whether the complainant has a cause of action against the respondent, but whether the employees have breached the norms and standards of the judiciary. Clearly, this Court has the duty to root out misconduct among its employees, regardless of the parties’ desistance.[14]
The records show that indeed respondent
tendered her resignation effective
Apropos is Re: (1) Lost Checks Issued to
the Late Roderick Roy P. Melliza, Former Clerk II,
MCTC, Zaragga,
. . . Respondent Andres is still an employee of this Court in spite of the resignation letter earlier filed, as verification from this Office revealed that her resignation has not been accepted nor acted upon. While indeed Andres, under the Civil Service Rules, may be allowed to resign pending decision of her case, it is without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings until finally terminated. To constitute a complete and operative resignation from public office, there must be: (a) an intention to relinquish a part of the term; (b) an act of relinquishment; and (c) an acceptance by the proper authority. The effectivity of her resignation commences from the time this Office approves the same after she is cleared from all her obligations for purposes of determining her entitlement to her separation benefits. Records [are] bereft of any indication that her resignation was accepted.[16] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The resignation of a respondent in an administrative case does not thus abate
the continuation of the proceedings thereon.
It is not a way out for a court personnel
who is facing
administrative sanction[17] to evade
administrative liability.
Respondent being then guilty of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct,
her dismissal from the service is warranted, following Section 52(A) of
Resolution No. 99136[18]
dated
WHEREFORE,
this Court finds respondent Carina Divinagracia Lagura, Utility Aide of the Regional
Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court,
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate
Justice ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES- Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES Associate Justice DANTE O. TINGA Associate
Justice CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate
Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice (NO PART) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate
Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice |
* No part.
[1] Rollo, p. 1.
[2] Annex “C,” id. at 6.
[3] In the afternoon of
[4] Rollo, pp. 15-17.
[5]
[6]
[7] 455 Phil. 28 (2003).
[8]
[9] Rollo, p. 21.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Bajar v. Baterisna, A.M. No.
P-06-2151,
[14] 371 Phil. 214, 223 (1999).
[15] Supra note 13.
[16]
[17]
[18] Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.