Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
BENIGNO B. REAS, Complainant, -versus
- CARLOS M. RELACION,
Respondent. |
A.M. No.
P-05-2095 [Formerly
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2085-P] Present: CARPIO MORALES, Chairperson, BRION, PERALTA,* BERSAMIN, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: February 9, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
Every official or employee of the
Judiciary is ever accountable in the performance of official duties as well as
in dealing with others.
On
Antecedents
Reas alleged in his complaint that by prior arrangement, the
Clerk of Court of the RTC (COC) delivered to the Cebu CFI Community Cooperative
(Cooperative) the salary checks of court personnel with outstanding obligations
with the Cooperative to pay for their loans; that his salary check for the
period of September 1 to 15, 2004 in the
amount of P4,280.00 was delivered by the COC to the Cooperative for that
purpose; that when he asked for the receipt corresponding to his payment, the
Cooperative informed him that his salary check had been “inadvertently
surrendered” to Relacion after the latter had harassed the Cooperative “to a
point of violence” to release his (Relacion) own check for that period; that Relacion
did not return the salary check to the Cooperative despite repeated demands;
that when he confronted Relacion, the latter admitted taking his salary check;
that Relacion mauled him when he refused Relacion’s offer to pay his salary
check with Relacion’s Judicial Development Fund (JDF) check; and that it was
only after the Cooperative confronted Relacion that the latter paid his salary
check.[2]
In his answer dated February 5, 2005,[3] Relacion
denied harassing or threatening the employees of the Cooperative, explaining that
on September 8, 2004, he went to the COC to get his own salary check for the
first half of September 2004; that while a COC staffmember was distributing the
salary checks to the court personnel in the presence of a Cooperative
representative, he expressed his intention to get his own salary check because
he needed the money; that the Cooperative’s representative agreed to his
request; and that after signing the payroll, the Cooperative’s representative handed
to him a salary check.
What happened next are best narrated
by Relacion, to wit:
5. x
x x Upon receipt of the check and thinking that it was his check, respondent
who was in a hurry, immediately folded the check without verifying the check,
the payee and the amount thereof. Respondent put the said check in his pocket.
He proceeded to the money changer for encashment of said postdated check. There
he signed the dorsal side of the check. x x x He received the cash as proceeds
thereof and immediately placed the cash already stapled and without counting
the money to his pocket. When he arrived at his house, he got the money still
stapled from his pocket and gave the money to his wife. She was surprised
because the net take home pay of herein respondent as first half salary was
only P1,575.00.
Respondent counted the money and it was P4,240.00. Believing that there was overpayment, herein respondent immediately
returned to the money changer to verify why there was overpayment but the money
changer was no longer there since accordingly she was somewhere in the capitol.
Herein respondent during that point in time still was not aware that the check
that he endorsed and encashed to the money changer belonged to the complainant.
x x x
6. On the following
day he went to the Cooperative and was informed that the check that was given
to him belonged to the complainant. That was the first time that this
respondent knew about it. Thereafter, herein respondent prepared a letter
addressed to the Cooperative requesting the manager to give the respondent his
check. x x x The intention of the respondent was to immediately settle the
problem, that is, by taking back the check of the complainant from the money
changer and to give it to the complainant or by paying the complainant the
equivalent value of his check which was P4,280.00. Herein respondent waited for the action and approval of the
Cooperative but despite said letter-request x x x the check of herein
respondent was not given to him by the Cooperative. He tried his best to immediately
settle the problem. Respondent did not even work on that very day that he came
to know of the problem just to immediately address said problem and just to
follow it up with the Cooperative and with the money changer.[4]
Relacion further narrated that he informed
Reas that he would pay him when they met at the bundy clock section; that Reas
then punched him but missed; that he thus dared Reas to a fistfight outside the
building, but the latter refused his dare; that both of them then entered the
office of the COC; that while they both sat inside said office, Reas stood up
and punched him on the left side of his neck; and that he retaliated by
punching Reas.
In his reply dated February 17, 2005,[5] Reas
denied punching Relacion, clarifying that he requested Relacion to apply the
latter’s JDF check to his obligations with the Cooperative, and to add some cash
to complete the amount of P4,280.00; that his request caused Relacion to
flare up and to shout invectives at him; that to avoid scandal, he asked Relacion
to go with him to the office of the COC; that when they were in the office of
the COC, Relacion punched him; and that the COC, Atty. Jeoffrey S. Aquino,
restrained Relacion from inflicting more harm on him.
Relacion’s rejoinder of
On
The Court approved and adopted OCA’s
recommendation on
On P100.00. Judge
Dumdum, Jr. recommended to the Court the approval of the compromise agreement
and the dismissal of the administrative matter.[9]
On
On P2,000.00 for
simple misconduct.
The Court noted the OCA’s report and
recommendation on
On
On
The parties later manifested their
submission of the administrative matter for decision,[15] which manifestation the Court noted
on
On
Ruling
After reviewing the records, we hold
that Relacion was guilty of simple misconduct, but we increase the recommended
fine of P2,000.00 to P5,000.00.
I
Compromise agreements between parties
do not terminate administrative matters
At the outset, the Court clarifies
that the compromise agreement between Reas and Relacion, or the fact that Reas
already forgave Relacion, does not necessarily warrant the dismissal of this administrative
matter.[18] Three reasons justify the
continuation of the administrative matter despite the compromise agreement or
the forgiveness. One, the Court’s
disciplinary authority is not dependent on or cannot be frustrated by the private
arrangements entered into by the parties; otherwise, the prompt and fair
administration of justice, as well as the discipline of court personnel, will be
undermined.[19] Two,
public interest is at stake in the conduct and actuations of the officials and
employees of the Judiciary. Accordingly, the efforts of the Court in improving
the delivery of justice to the people should not be frustrated and put to
naught by any private arrangements between the parties.[20] And, three, the Court’s interest in the affairs of the Judiciary is a
paramount concern that bows to no limits.[21]
II
Respondent Relacion was guilty of
Simple Misconduct
The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel requires that the officials and
employees of the Judiciary serve as sentinels of justice, and declares that any
act of impropriety on their part affects the dignity of the Judiciary and the
people’s faith in the Judiciary.[22] Thus, the court personnel must exhibit
the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of their
official duties, but also in their private dealings with their co-employees and
with the public.[23] Their professional and personal conduct
must be free from any whiff of impropriety.[24]
Here, there is no sufficient proof showing
that Relacion intentionally took Reas’ salary check from the Cooperative. Lucino
Q. Garcia, an employee of the Cooperative, admitted in his certification dated
Moreover, Relacion’s excuse for not returning
Reas’ check was lame and implausible. In this regard, we adopt the OCA’s
findings and observations, viz:
His claim that he received and encashed complainant’s salary check without bothering to look at the face of the check and without counting the money given him by the money changer in exchange for the check does not inspire belief. One does not simply fold and pocket a check after receiving it from someone; it is usually examined to confirm the payee and its amount. At its encashment, the payee ensures that the right amount is given him/her by counting the money before leaving the money changer.
The incredulity of respondent’s narration was all the more underscored by his claim that immediately after he was told by his wife that the money was more than the amount of his expected salary, he allegedly went back to the money changer to verify if there was an overpayment, but the money changer was no longer around. It was only when he went to the Cooperative the following day that he learned that the salary check he received and encashed belonged to complainant. Thereafter, he allegedly tried his best to settle the problem with complainant.
If, indeed, he were sincere and determined to settle the problem with complainant, he could have simply turned over to the Cooperative the proceeds of the complainant’s salary check as he knew that it was intended for the payment of the loan of complainant with the Cooperative. Based on respondent’s narration of events, the money given in exchange for the check was still intact at the time of the discovery of the erroneous giving of complainant’s salary check to him. From the time respondent received the money from the money changer, it remained “stapled” up to the time he handed it to his wife. Being made aware that the money could not be his, the prudent and most logical thing that he should have done was to turn over the money either to the Cooperative or to the complainant, and to request the Cooperative to release his own salary check.
That respondent tried his best to settle the problem with complainant is further belied by his admission that he had “a chance” to meet with complainant at the “Bundy Clock section.” Obviously, that meeting was not sought for by respondent, but was merely accidental. It is of no moment who between complainant and respondent started the fight, or who was telling the truth. The bottom line was the intentional failure of respondent to immediately return the money belonging to complainant precipitated that fight.
While there is no direct evidence showing
that respondent used the money intended for complainant for his own use, the
above circumstances point towards his administrative culpability.
Relacion’s failure to immediately
return Reas’ salary check was improper and constituted misconduct. According to
Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, [25] misconduct is a transgression of
some established rule of action, an unlawful behavior, or gross negligence by a
public officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional
elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of long-standing
rules, which must be established by substantial evidence. Otherwise, the
misconduct is only simple.[26] That
Relacion did not maliciously or deliberately take Reas’ salary check rendered
him liable only for simple misconduct.
Under Section 52 (B) (2), Rule IV, of
the Revised Uniform Rules On
Administrative Cases In the Civil Service, simple misconduct is a less
grave offense with a penalty ranging from suspension for one month and one day
to six months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense,
thus:
RULE IV – PENALTIES
Section 52. Classification of Offenses. – Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
x x x
B. The following are less grave offenses with the corresponding penalties:
x x x
2. Simple Misconduct
1st Offense – Suspension 1 mo. 1 day to 6 mos.
2nd Offense – Dismissal
x x x
Considering that the misconduct was Relacion’s
first offense, the penalty imposable on him is suspension for one month and one
day to six months. However, we should note that, firstly, Reas already forgave him and Relacion indemnified Reas in
the amount of P100.00, as evidenced by their compromise agreement; secondly, the amount of the salary check
was only P4,280.00 and was already reimbursed to Reas; and, lastly, Relacion was contemplating on retiring
due to a lingering illness. The penalty of suspension would be too severe under
the circumstances. Instead, the imposition of a fine of P5,000.00 suffices,
and accords with the rulings involving simple misconduct committed by court employees,
like those in Guillen v. Constantino,[27] and in Office of the Court Administrator v. Veneracion.[28]
WHEREFORE, we pronounce
Carlos M. Relacion, Clerk III, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, in
and order him to pay a fine of P5,000.00,
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be
dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
* In lieu of Justice Maria Lourdes P. A.
Sereno who is on leave per Office Order No. 944 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-4.
[2] Ibid.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] Bulado v. Tiu, Jr., A.M. No.
P-96-1211,
[19] Teodosio v. Carpio, A.M. No.
MTJ-02-1416,
[20] Enojas, Jr. v. Gacott, Jr., A.M. No.
RTJ-99-1513,
[21] De Joya v. Diaz, A.M. No.
MTJ-02-1450,
[22] Civil Service Commission v. Dasco,
A.M. No. P-07-2335,
[23] Id.; also, Re: Disciplinary Action Against Antonio Lamano, Jr. of the Judgment Division, Supreme Court, A.M. No. 99-10-10-SC, November 29, 1999, 319 SCRA 350, 352.
[24] Albano-Madrid v. Apolonio, A.M. No.
P-01-1517,
[25] G.R. No. 154521,
[26] Ibid.
[27] A.M. No. SB-95-6-P,
[28] A.M. No. RTJ-99-1432,