|
Florencio R. Bernabe, |
|
A.M.
No. P-08-2453 |
|
Complainant, |
|
(Formerly OCA IPI No.
08-2764-P) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUNO,
C.J., |
|
|
|
QUISUMBING, |
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, |
|
|
|
CARPIO,* |
|
|
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
- versus - |
|
|
|
|
|
CARPIO
MORALES, |
|
|
|
AZCUNA,
|
|
|
|
TINGA, |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, |
|
|
|
VELASCO, Jr., |
|
|
|
NACHURA, |
|
|
|
DE CASTRO, |
|
Zenaida C. Grimaldo, |
|
BRION, and |
|
Court
Stenographer, |
|
PERALTA, JJ. |
|
Regional
Trial Court, Branch 7, |
|
|
|
|
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
February
2, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - x
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
This Court will
not shirk from its responsibility of sternly wielding a corrective hand to
discipline its errant employees and to weed out those who are undesirable.[1] While it has the discretion to temper the
harshness of its judgment with mercy,[2] it shall
also not hesitate to impose the ultimate penalty of dismissal where an employee
commits, without any remorse or hint of reformation, the same wrongful act she
was previously disciplined for and warned about.
Florencio R. Bernabe
(complainant) filed before the Court an Affidavit-Complaint dated
Complainant
avers that respondent received from him and his sister, Susana Bernabe Fuentes
(Susana), a total of P130,000.00 in order to facilitate the transfer and
subdivision of properties left by their late aunt Asuncion Bernabe. Attached to the complaint were: handwritten
notes dated April 9, 2000 and April 12, 2000 signed by respondent acknowledging
receipt from Susana of the amounts of P40,000.00 and P10,000.00,
respectively, as payment for inheritance tax, transfer of title, registration,
tax declaration and acceptance fee of a certain Atty. Cermelito Santoyo; and a
handwritten note signed by respondent dated January 16, 2001 acknowledging
receipt from complainant of the amount of P80,000.00 as payment for the
subdivision of the Manggahan property, inheritance tax and transfer tax.[3] When respondent failed to cause the transfer
of titles to the property, complainant sent a demand letter dated
In her Comment
dated June 29, 2007, respondent admitted that in late 2005, she promised
complainant that she would return to them the P130,000.00 they entrusted
to her; unfortunately, she was not able to do so because her husband was rushed
to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) on January 22, 2006 and died on February 4,
2006 which caused her grief and financial distress; she pleaded with
complainant that she would fulfill her commitment to him but on installment
basis; thus, she gave him first the amount of P15,000.00 on February 9,
2007; to her dismay, she received complainant's letter dated February 12, 2007
through this Court, charging her administratively; she did not immediately file
her Comment, since she wanted to ask complainant first why he changed his mind
and to explain to him that her loan application would not be approved because
of the present administrative case; when she was able to talk to complainant,
however, the latter accused her of making a series of statements which made him
angry; she requested the Court to allow her
to settle the matter until July 31, 2007, and said that if the present case would
not hinder her application for a loan renewal, she would deposit its proceeds
to complainant's bank account right away.[7]
The Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA),[8] in its
Report dated March 10, 2008, recommended that the instant case be re-docketed
as a regular administrative matter; that respondent be found guilty of gross
misconduct; and that she be meted the penalty of dismissal from the service
with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and
with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the
government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.[9]
The OCA found
that respondent did not deny receiving from complainant the amount of P130,000.00
for the transfer to complainant and his sister of title to an inherited
property; by doing so, she gave the impression that she had some influence on
the facilitation of the document necessary for the transfer and subdivision of
properties, which conduct was improper and constituted grave offense punishable
by dismissal from the service; respondent's acts not only put her but the
judiciary as well in a most negative light, for complainant would not have
secured her services if not for her representation that she could facilitate
the transfer because of her position as an employee of the court;
notwithstanding her promise that she would return the money, her conduct had
already tainted and affected the image of the judiciary.[10]
The OCA also
noted that respondent had been previously disciplined and warned by the Court
in her previous administrative cases: (1) Rural Bank of Balagtas v.
Grimaldo, A.M. No. P-91-591, (Grimaldo), in which she was found
guilty of willful failure to pay just debt and fined P500.00 on
In a Resolution
dated
The Court finds
the report and recommendation of the OCA to be well-taken.
Respondent
admits that she received P130,000.00 from complainant and his
sister. She also does not deny the
circumstances surrounding her receipt of the said money, i.e., it was
given to her to facilitate the transfer and subdivision of properties inherited
by complainant. She only claims that she
was not able to return the amount to complainant upon demand because of her
husband's medical emergency and untimely death; and she promises to pay the
same, on installment basis or as soon as
her loan renewal application is approved.
As the Court
explained in respondent's previous case entitled Roque v. Grimaldo,[15] adopting
the report of the Investigating Judge:[16]
The respondent occupies a stenographer position
and as such her duty is essentially limited to the transcription of the records
of the proceedings during a Court session and does not generally entail dealing
in whatever capacity with party litigants, save in cases involving stenographic
notes. By giving impression to the complainants that she can handle their
problems of not only the processing of the reconstitution of their titles but
the ultimate transfer in their individual names the titles --- an act which is
outside her official function, respondent violated the established norm of
conduct prescribed for court employees, i.e., to maintain a hands-off attitude
in matters not her duty. This is to
maintain the integrity of the Court and, on the other, in order to free court
personnel from suspicion of any misconduct. (citations omitted)
x x x x
Respondent has, therefore, no business indulging
in the processing of reconstitution of titles because it is prejudicial to the
interest of the service. The government employees are prohibited to
give favor in exchange for money consideration.
And besides, the act of respondent is an act of lawyering, and not being
knowledgeable about the intricacies of the legal procedure it will greatly
prejudice the parties concerned and it hampers her performance as a public
servant.[17] (Emphasis supplied)
The Court further held that:
x x x There is no question that respondent's
position is essentially limited to the transcription of the records of the
proceedings during a court session.
Considering that her position does not generally entail dealing in
whatever capacity with party litigants, save in cases involving stenographic notes,
respondent's act of processing the reconstitution cases undoubtedly proved
prejudicial to the best interest of the service. In entering into this kind of arrangement
with complainants, respondent would necessarily have to leave her post at
Branch 7 to attend to the processing of said reconstitution cases. Moreover, respondent is laying herself open
to charges of giving favors to the public in exchange for monetary
consideration. Hence, our oft-repeated
admonition that court personnel should refrain from dealings, financial or
otherwise, which would interfere with the efficient performance of their
duties.[18]
In Roque,
respondent received from complainants Pedro Roque, Eugenio Roque, Maria Reyes
and Myrna Gloria the total sum of P20,500.00, and from Fortunate Mateo
and Ismael Hipolito the total amount of P42,000.00, for the titling of
their respective lands, which respondent failed to accomplish.[19] For such offense, the Court imposed on her a
fine in an amount equivalent to her one-month salary with a warning that the
commission of the same or similar offenses will be dealt with more severely.[20]
Such clear
reproof notwithstanding, respondent in 2000 again received from complainant and
his sister the total amount of P130,000.00 to facilitate the transfer of
titles to the latters' names. The fact
that she was not able to return the said amount to complainant in 2005 because
of her husband's death is beside the point.
Respondent's offense is not just her failure to pay a loan or a debt,
but her receipt of money from individuals who gave the same to her upon her
representation that she could facilitate the transfer of titles to their names
because of her position as a court employee.
As the OCA pointed out:
x x x [Respondent]
admitted the allegations that she offered to facilitate the transfer of
properties and received money to cover the expenses of the transfer. These acts put not only the respondent but
the judiciary as well in a most negative light.
For indeed complainant would not have secured the service of respondent
if not for the latter's 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 promise that she will
return the money, her conduct had already tainted and affected the image of the
judiciary.[21]
The Court cannot
emphasize enough that employees of the judiciary must exercise prudence in
dealing with other people.[22] Employees of the judiciary must be wary and
should tread carefully when assisting other persons, even if such assistance
would call for the exercise of acts unrelated to their official functions.[23] This is because the image of a court of
justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel
who work thereat.[24] The conduct of persons serving the judiciary
must at all times be characterized by propriety and decorum and, above all
else, be above suspicion so as to earn and keep the respect of the public for
the judiciary.[25] This Court would never countenance any
conduct, act or omission on the part of all those in the administration of
justice, if it would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or
even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[26]
Conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service, under Rule IV, Section 52(A)
(20) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, carries
the penalty of suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first
offense and dismissal for the second.
Considering that
this is respondent's second offense for conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, such offense carries the penalty of dismissal from the
service under Section 52(B) (2) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service.
Considering the
foregoing, the Court has no recourse but to impose on respondent the penalty of
dismissal from the service. She is also
ordered to return to complainant and his sister the amount of P115,000.00,
which is the remaining balance due after deducting the P15,000.00
respondent gave complainant on
WHEREFORE, the Court
finds Zenaida C. Grimaldo, Court Stenographer III of the Regional Trial Court
Branch 7, Malolos, Bulacan, GUILTY of conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of public service, for which she is DISMISSED from the service
with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and
with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the
government including government-owned and controlled corporations. She is further ordered to return, within
thirty (30) days from receipt of herein Decision, to complainant Florencio R.
Bernabe the sum of P65,000.00 and to Susana Bernabe Fuentes the amount
of P50,000.00, totalling P115,000.00 which she received from
them, with a warning that her failure to do so may be a ground for contempt of
court.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
(On Official Leave)
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA
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 |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
(On leave) (On leave)
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
* On official leave, per Special
Order No. 548 dated
[1] Vilar
v. Angeles, A.M. No. P-06-2276,
[2] Vilar
v. Angeles, id.
[3] Rollo,
pp. 1-9.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Rollo,
pp. 13-14.
[8] Through
then Officer-in-Charge, now Court Administrator Jose P. Perez and Deputy Court
Administrator Antonio H. Dujua.
[9] Rollo,
p. 4.
[10] Rollo,
p. 3.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] A.M.
No. P-95-1148,
[16] Executive
Judge Natividad G. Dizon; see Roque v. Grimaldo, supra note 15.
[17]
[18]
[19] Roque
v. Grimaldo, supra note 15, at 3-4.
[20]
[21] Rollo,
p. 3.
[22] Prak
v. Anacan, A.M. No. P-03-1738,
[23] Prak
v. Anacan, id. at 116.
[24] Baron
v. Anacan, A.M. No. P-04-1816,
[25]
[26]
[27] Rollo, p. 16.