Republic of the
Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
|
PRISCILLA L. HERNANDO, Complainant, - versus - JULIANA Y. BENGSON, Legal Researcher, RTC, Branch 104, Quezon City, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No. P-09-2686 (Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 06-2441-P) Present: CORONA, CJ., VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA, MENDOZA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: March 21, 2012 |
X
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
R E S O L U T I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This resolves the Urgent Ex-parte
Motion & Manifestation for Clarification filed by respondent Juliana Y.
Bengson (Bengson) seeking to clarify
whether or not the 30-day and one-day suspension of
the respondent pursuant to the Resolution dated March 10, 2010 is a
continuation of the second modified Resolution dated March 28, 2011 suspending
the same respondent for another six months and one day.[1]
In its March 10, 2010 Resolution, the
Court initially found Bengson guilty of Simple Misconduct as recommended by the
Investigating Judge and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Questioning the penalty imposed, private
complainant Priscilla L. Hernando (Hernando)
moved for a reconsideration thereof.
In her motion, Hernando pointed out that
Bengsons act of offering to facilitate the land transfer papers at the Bureau
of Internal Revenue (BIR) was akin to
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and, thus, should be
punished as such pursuant to the ruling in Largo
v. Court of Appeals.[2] In
the same motion, Hernando sought restitution of the aggregate amount of ₱76,000.00
given to Bengson as a just debt.
In her comment, Bengson claimed that
she had no interest whatsoever in the land transfers referred to and that she
merely accommodated the request of the daughter of Hernando.
After a review of the records, the
Court affirmed its earlier findings regarding the complicity of Bengson in the failed
titling of Hernandos property. This is based on the report of the Executive
Judge tasked to investigate the case as well as the recommendation submitted by
the OCA. The Court, however, reconsidered the earlier imposed penalty following
the pronouncement in Largo v. CA. In
the Resolution of March 28, 2011, the Court stated:
In resolving this question, a review
of the Courts disposition in the case of Largo
v. CA is instructional. In that case, it was explained that an
administrative offense constitutes misconduct when it has direct relation to,
and is connected with, the performance of the official duties of the one
charged.
x x x. By
uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of
his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his character as a
private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all times, it is
necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the
officer, x x x. It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance
warranting removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to and
be connected with the performance of official duties amounting either to
maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the
duties of the office, x x x.
Thus, misconduct refers to a
transgression of an established and definite rule of action, more specifically,
some unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer charged.
It must be noted however that
in that case, no proof was offered to show that Largos actions being
complained of were related to or performed by him in taking advantage of his
position. His actions did not have any direct relation to or connection with
the performance of his official duties. Hence, it was concluded that Largo
acted in his private capacity, and thus, cannot be made liable for misconduct. But,
considering that Largos questioned conduct tarnished the image and integrity
of his public office, he must still be held liable for conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service. The basis for his liability is found in
Republic Act No. 6713 (R.A. 6713) or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees. The Code, particularly Section 4 (c)
thereof, commands that public officials and employees shall at all times
respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to
public safety and public interest. And Largos actuations fell short of this
standard.
Similarly, applying the same standard to the present
case, the Court agrees with the position taken by Hernando - that Bengson
should be liable under Rule IV, Section 52 (A) 20 for Conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service in view of her act of offering her services
for facilitation of the land transfer papers at the BIR and representing that
her half-sister and niece had the capacity to facilitate the titling of subject
property.[3]
Accordingly, the penalty imposed on
Bengson was modified in this wise:
WHEREFORE,
the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED,
our Resolution dated March 10, 2010 is MODIFIED. Juliana Y.
Bengson, Legal Researcher, Regional Trial Court, Branch 104, Quezon City, is
found GUILTY of Conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service and is hereby ordered SUSPENDED for six (6)
months and one (1) day from the service without pay. She is further ordered to
restitute the amount of PhP76,000.00 plus legal interest to Priscilla Hernando,
starting from the year 2003.[4]
WHEREFORE, the Court clarifies that the
original penalty of suspension of 30 days and 1 day pursuant to the Resolution
of March 10, 2010 was modified and increased to 6 months and 1 day suspension
pursuant to the Resolution of March 28, 2011.
The period of suspension that she has served pursuant to the March 10,
2010 Resolution shall form part of, and will be credited to her service of, the
penalty imposed by the March 28, 2011 Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE
CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Chairperson
BIENVENIDO
L. REYES
Associate Justice