Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 12 2004.

A.M. No. MTJ-03-1507 (Concerned Citizens of San Francisco, Surigao del Norte vs. Judge Pullos, et al.)

Before us are respondents Manuel D. Gaelan, Esmeralda L. Angob, Rosario B. Gasulas and Almea B. Payusan's motion for reduction of penalty of one year suspension without pay which we imposed on them in our decision dated January 20, 2004 to payment of a fine. They cite as reasons that their suspension as Clerk of Court, Clerk II and stenographers would have undue adverse effect on the public service as the court will be without personnel to assist the presiding judge and the remaining employees. They cite the case of Angeles vs. Base[1] where we reduced the penalty of one month suspension to a fine.

We deny the motion for reconsideration.

In the Angeles case cited by respondents, Remedios Base, Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court, Brooke's Point, Palawan was found guilty of neglect of duty for being negligent in the release of the cash bond under her safekeeping. Under the Civil Service Law and Omnibus Rules implementing the same, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense penalized with suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. We found that since it was her first infraction, she was to be meted the penalty of one month suspension without pay. However, we converted her penalty to a payment of fine equivalent to her one month salary so she can continue to discharge her assigned task to prevent any undue adverse effect on the public service.

In the instant case, herein respondents were found guilty of dishonesty for overcharging complainants in court clearances. Respondents, as part of the administration of justice is required to live up to the strict standard of honesty and integrity in public service. Unlike the Angeles case where the clerk of court was simply inefficient in the discharge of her functions, the conduct of herein respondents is threatening to the very existence of the administration of justice, thus should be suspended and not merely required to pay a fine equivalent to their one year suspension. While it is true that the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of San Francisco, Surigao del Norte, where the respondents are presently assigned would be adversely affected by their suspension, the court is not helpless to assign or detail other court employees to do respondents' respective jobs.

In view of the foregoing, we resolve to DENY the motion for reconsideration with FINALITY.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court