Gualberto CASTRO v Hon Sec Ricardo GLORIA as SECS  From the facts it is clear that the penalty of dismissal

it is clear that the penalty of dismissal from the service

Aug 20, 2001 | Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. was erroneously imposed upon petitioner. Certiorari is the remedy to
correct errors of judgment which are grave and arbitrary and not
Porfirio Gutang Jr. filed with the DECS a complaint for disgraceful and immoral mandamus
conduct against Gualberto Castro, a teacher in Guibuangan Central School,  Mandamus will not lie to order the reinstatement of the petitioner in
Barili, Cebu. his former position as it was not yet established that he is entitled to or
 It was alleged that he has an illicit affair with Gutang’s wife, petitioner’s has legal right to the office
co-teacher at the same school.
His MR was denied hence, the present petition for review on certiorari
After hearing, the DECS Regional Office VII, through Assistant Superintendent
Francisco B. Concillo, rendered a decision declaring petitioner guilty of the Petitioner insists that, when the question to be settled is purely a question of law,
offense charged. he may go directly to the proper court so that he can have proper redress.
 He was meted the penalty of dismissal from the service. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that petitioner’s adequate
 The DECS Central Office affirmed Concillo’s decision in an Indorsement remedy was to appeal the decision of respondent Secretary to the Civil Service
Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Executive Order No. 292.
Petitioner filed a MR.  Since petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, his petition
 School Division Superintendent recommended that the motion be must be dismissed for lack of cause of action.
resolved favorably. However, the recommendation was opposed by the  Also, the OSG argues that the remedy of mandamus to compel payment
DECS Region VII. of back salary does not lie unless petitioners right thereto is well
defined. This is based on the general proposition that a public official is
Petitioner then sent letters to the incumbent SECS to resolve his MR but his not entitled to any compensation if he has not rendered any service.
letters remained unheeded thus, petitioner filed with the DECS Central Office a
Motion for Review Setting Aside/Modifying the Decision of RD of DECS Region ISSUE
VII. WON the penalty of dismissal from service is properly meted out – NO
 SECS Ricardo Gloria referred the motion to the RD of Region VII for
comment Petitioner has all the reasons to seek the aid of this Court since it has been
 RD Eladio Dioko issued a 2nd Indorsement sustaining the decision of clearly established by evidence that he is a first time offender.
Asst Superintendent Concillo Section 23, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No.
 In his 3rd Indorsement, he denied petitioner’s motion for review 292 (Otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987 and other Pertinent
Civil Service Laws) provides:
Petitioner then filed a petition for mandamus with the RTC, imploring that Sec. 23. Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are
judgment be rendered ordering respondent Secretary or anyone who may have classified into grave, less grave, and light depending on the gravity of its
assumed the duties and functions of his office (1) to reduce his penalty from nature and effects of said acts on the government service.
dismissal to one (1) year suspension; 2) to consider the one (1) year suspension The following are grave offenses with its corresponding penalties:
as already served considering that he has been out of the service for more than xxxxxx
ten (10) years; 3) to reinstate him to his former position; and 4) to pay is back (o) Disgraceful and immoral conduct <1st Offense, Suspension for six (6)
salaries. months and one day (1) day to one (1) year; 2nd Offense, Dismissal.>
 RTC dismissed the petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies, ruling that petitioner should have appealed to
the CSC before coming to court
As correctly pointed out by petitioner, the proper penalty for the 1st offense of charges such as when the penalty of dismissal is reduced to mere suspension, he
disgraceful and immoral conduct is only suspension for six (6) months and one would not be entitled to the payment of his back salaries.
(1) day to one (1) year.
In Aquino v. Navarro, a secondary guidance counselor in a public high school, In Yacia v. City of Baguio, the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service
was merely suspended for disgraceful and immoral conduct. In Burgos v. ordering the dismissal of a government employee on the ground of dishonesty
Aquino, the Court suspended a court stenographer for six months for was immediately executed pending appeal. But, on appeal, the Civil Service
maintaining illicit relations with the complainants husband and for perjury in Board of Appeals modified that penalty of dismissal to a fine equivalent to six
not disclosing in her personal information sheet she has a daughter as a result months’ pay. This Court ruled that the employees claim for back wages, for the
of that relationship. Similarly, in Nalupta Jr. v. Tapec, a deputy sheriff was period during which he was not allowed to work because of the execution of the
suspended for six months and one day for having a relationship with a woman decision of the Commissioner, should be denied.
other than his wife by whom he has two children. Thus:
The act of respondent of having illicit relations with Consolacion Inocencio is The general proposition is that a public official is not entitled to any
considered disgraceful and immoral conduct within the purview of Section compensation if he has not rendered any service. As he works, he shall earn.
36 (b) (5) of Presidential Decree No. 807, otherwise known as the Civil Since petitioner did not work during the period for which he is now claiming
Service Decree of the Philippines, for which respondent may be subjected to salaries, there can be no legal or equitable basis to order the payment of such
disciplinary action. Memorandum Circular No. 30, Series of 1989 of the salaries.
Civil Service Commission has categorized disgraceful and immoral
conduct as a grave offense for which a penalty of suspension for six (6) Thus, we reduce the penalty of dismissal imposed upon petitioner to suspension
months and one (1) day shall be imposed for the first offense, while the for a period of one year without pay. Considering that he has been out of the
penalty of dismissal is imposed for the second offense. service for quite a long time, we feel he has been sufficiently punished for his
offense. We, therefore, order his reinstatement.
Inasmuch as the present charge of immorality against respondent
constitutes the first charge of this nature, the Court shall at this instance PETITION GRANTED.
suspend respondent for six (6) months and one (1) day.

Again, in the 1997 case of Ecube-Badel v. Badel, the Court imposed the penalty of
suspension for one (1) year without pay against respondent David Badel for his
first offense of immorality.

It is worthy to note that even DECS Regional Director Eladio C. Dioko stated in
his 2nd Indorsement dated January 3, 1996, that while he sustains Director
Concillos decision, the proper penalty as provided by law (should) be meted out
for him. The Regional Trial Court also echoed the same sentiment.

RE: Payment of backwages

Prayer is without legal basis.
Payment of salaries corresponding to the period when an employee is not
allowed to work may be decreed if he is found innocent of the
charges. However, if the employee is not completely exenorated of the
Herman CANIETE and Wilfredo Rosario v SECS  [T]o allow private respondent to receive full back salaries would
June 19, 2000 | Kapunan, J. amount to rewarding him for his misdeeds and compensating him for
services that were never rendered.
Petitioners are public school teachers at the Juan Sumulong High School in
Quezon City. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the above decision but the CA
 For being absent on 20 and 21 September 1990, they were charged by denied the same in its Resolution. Hence, this appeal.
Secretary Isidro Cario, then Secretary of the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports, with alleged participation in the mass ISSUE
actions/strikes on said dates. WON petitioners are entitled to their back salaries upon their reinstatement
 Petitioners were placed under preventive suspension on 21 September after they were found guilty of an offense with a lower penalty (dismissed for
1990. Later, Secretary Cario found petitioners "guilty as charged" and allegedly participating in mass action/strikes, found guilty of violating
dismissed them from the service "effective immediately." reasonable office rules and regulations penalized with reprimand) – YES
 The said decisions of Secretary Cario, however, were set aside by the
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) when the case was brought to In Gloria v CA, the public school teachers therein were either suspended or
it on appeal. The MSPB found that petitioners were guilty only of Gross dismissed for allegedly participating in the strikes sometime in September and
Violation of Existing Civil Service Law and Rules and suspended them October 1990. They were eventually exonerated of said charge and found guilty
for three (3) months without pay. only of violation of reasonable office rules and regulations by failing to file
applications for leave of absence. Thus, the penalty of dismissal earlier imposed
In its Resolution, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) modified the decision of on them was reduced to reprimand and their reinstatement was ordered.
the MSPB.
 CSC found that petitioners were only guilty of being absent on 20 and Moreover, the Court affirmed the payment of back salaries of said teachers
21 September 1990 without the necessary leave of absence, and not as explaining that although "employees who are preventively suspended pending
charged by Secretary Cario of participating in the mass actions/strikes investigation are not entitled to the payment of their salaries even if they are
on said dates. Accordingly, petitioners were meted out the penalty of exonerated, we do not agree with the government that they are not entitled to
reprimand. compensation for the period of their suspension pending appeal if eventually
they are found innocent. 1
Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the CSC resolution insofar as it
disallowed the payment of their back salaries. 1
The pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law (Book V, Title I, Subtitle A of the
 The CSC denied their motion for reconsideration. Administrative Code) on preventive suspension are as follows:
SEC. 47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction.
Petitioners then elevated the case to the CA but the latter affirmed the decision xxx
of the CSC. (2) The Secretaries and heads of agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, cities
 In denying petitioners claim for back salaries, the CA cited City Mayor of and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving
Zamboanga vs. CA, where this Court held: disciplinary action against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. Their
x x x back salaries may be ordered paid to an officer or employee only if decisions shall be final in case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than
thirty days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty days salary. In case the
he is exonerated of the charge against him and his suspension or
decision rendered by a bureau or office head is appealable to the Commission, the
dismissal is found and declared to be illegal. In Sales vs. Mathay, Sr., 129
same may be initially appealed to the department and finally to the Commission
SCRA 321, this Court held that a postal clerk suspended for six months and pending appeal, the same shall be executory except when the penalty is
for gross neglect of duty is not entitled to back salary if he cannot show removal, in which case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the
that his suspension was unjustified or that he is innocent of the charge. Secretary concerned.
There are two kinds of preventive suspension of civil service employees  “Under Section 23 of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order
charged with offenses punishable by removal or suspension: No. 292 and other pertinent civil service laws, in violations of
(1) preventive suspension pending investigation (51) and reasonable office rules and regulations, the first offense is punishable
(2) preventive suspension pending appeal if the penalty imposed by the by reprimand. To deny petitioner Mariano his back wages during his
disciplining authority is suspension or dismissal and, after review, the suspension would be tantamount to punishing him after his
respondent is exonerated (47[4]) exoneration from the charges which caused his dismissal from the
service.”
In Gloria, it was held that the employee who is placed under preventive  “In Jacinto v CA, a public school teacher who was found guilty of
suspension pending investigation is not entitled to compensation because such violation of reasonable office rules and regulations for having been
suspension is not a penalty but only a means of enabling the disciplining absent without leave and reprimanded was given back salaries after
authority to conduct an unhampered investigation. she was exonerated of the charge of having taken part in the strikes.”

On the other hand, there is right to compensation for preventive suspension Given the substantial factual similarities of the present case to Gloria, there is no
pending appeal if the employee is eventually exonerated. This is because reason for the Court to rule against the payment of back salaries to petitioners.
"preventive suspension pending appeal is actually punitive although it is in
effect subsequently considered illegal if respondent is exonerated and the PETITION GIVEN DUE COURSE. CA RESOLUTION REVERSED AND SET
administrative decision finding him guilty is reversed. Hence, he should be ASIDE.
reinstated with full pay for the period of the suspension."

xxx
(4) An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory, and in case the
penalty is suspension or removal, the respondent shall be considered as having
been under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal in the event
he wins an appeal.

SEC 51. Preventive Suspension.- The proper disciplining authority may preventively
suspend any subordinate officer or employee under his authority pending an
investigation, if the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty,
oppression or grave misconduct, or neglect in the performance of duty, or if there
are reasons to believe that the respondent is guilty of charges which would warrant
his removal from the service.

SEC. 52. Lifting of Preventive Suspension Pending Administrative Investigation.-

When the administrative case against the officer or employee under preventive
suspension is not finally decided by the disciplining authority within the period of
ninety (90) days after the date of suspension of the respondent who is not a
presidential appointee, the respondent shall be automatically reinstated in the
service: Provided, That when the delay in the disposition of the case is due to the
fault, negligence or petition of the respondent, the period of delay shall not be
counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided.
Mariano NALUPTA Jr, v Honesto TAPEC, Deputy Sheriff, RTC Br 18, Batac, accommodate complainant's unreasonable requests in connection with several
Ilocos, Norte cases the latter was handling before the Regional Trial Court of Batac.
March 30, 1993 | Nocon, J.
Complainant points to several items in the certified true copies of the birth
Complainant Mariano R. Nalupta, Jr. accuses respondent Honesto G. Tapec, of certificates submitted to the Court which show that respondent Tapec is the
immorality by cohabiting with his paramour Consolacion Inocencio, with whom father of the two children. Regarding the charge that respondent is discharging
he had two children, and of discharging the duties of Barangay Captain of the duties of barangay captain, complainant submitted a certification dated
Masintoc, Paoay, Ilocos Norte despite holding his present position. September 30, 1988 from Bonifacio A. Eclipse of the Department of the Local
Government at Paoay, Ilocos Norte, to the effect that respondent was appointed
In a sworn complaint dated September 20, 1988 filed with the Office of the OIC-Barangay Captain of Barangay No. 19, Masintoc, Paoay, Ilocos Norte on
Court Administrator, complainant Nalupta averred that: December 11, 1986. Complainant denies having any improper motive for filing
 he is the Congressman representing the Second District of Ilocos Norte,; the complaint.
 his wife's relatives are from Batac, and that they are close to a certain
Consolacion Inocencio; SC referred the case to the Executive Judge of RTC of Batac for investigation,
 Consolacion Inocencio is the paramour of respondent Tapec, with report and recommendation.
whom she had two children, namely, Marc Henry Tapec, born  Judge Rubio set the case for hearing on September 23, 1991, and on
September 23, 1985, and Joseph Marlou I. Tapec, born November 27, said date, received the evidence for the complainant consisting of
1987 complainant's own testimony and that of Noel Rosario. Respondent
 Respondent Tapec is married to Felicitas Langaman from Paoay and failed to attend said hearing despite due notice.
that their marriage is still subsisting  Judge Rubio reset the case for the reception of respondent's evidence.
 respondent Tapec is cohabiting with Inocencio in such an open and However, respondent through counsel Atty. Romeo Bringas filed a
scandalous manner that it offended the relatives of the wife of Manifestation and Motion praying that the proceedings on September
complainant Nalupta, constraining them to call his attention to it. 23,1991 be set aside and that Judge Rubio inhibit himself on the ground
 Complainant also stated that respondent Tapec is presently discharging that he was a former client of Atty. Bringas.
the duties of Barangay Captain of Masintoc, Paoay, despite his
appointment as Deputy Provincial Sheriff. Judge Rubio asked the SC for permission to inhibit himself. Case was reassigned
to Judge Agnir who directed the parties to appear before him for the purpose of
Then Court Administrator, Hon. Maximo A. Maceren, referred complainant setting the dates for the continuous hearing of the case.
Nalupta's sworn complaint to the Supreme Court for its consideration.  None of the parties appeared on said date, prompting Judge Agnir to
reset the conference. The notice of the new date for the conference sent
Tapec vehemently denied the charges of immorality, claiming that these were to respondent was returned to the court with the annotation "AWOL."
"malicious and fabricated."
 He claims that his son Honesto Tapec, Jr. is the father of the two After several more postponements, the hearing resumed with only the
children Marc and Joseph, as shown by the affidavits of Consolacion complainant's counsel Atty. Daniel Rubio appearing.
Inocencio and Atty. Benigno Galacgac.  Said counsel informed the court that his client had suffered a stroke
 He likewise denied the charge that he is discharging the duties of and submitted a medical certificate attesting to such a fact.
barangay captain, the truth being that he is merely a barangay  Counsel, who happened to be from Batac, also intimated to the court
consultant. that respondent had gone abroad and had not returned since.
Respondent attributed the filing of the complaint to his refusal to support
complainant's candidacy during the 1987 elections, as well as his refusal to
  Judge Agnir scheduled several more hearing dates, but since neither Similarly established is the fact that the illicit union of respondent and Inocencio
complainant nor respondent appeared, he issued an order considering had produced two children as shown by the certified true copies of the
the case submitted for decision. children's respective birth certificates. 5 The authenticity of these birth
certificates was later verified by Judge Agnir's Branch Clerk of Court.
Judge Agnir directed his Branch Clerk of Court to verify with the Local Civil
Registrar of Batac, Ilocos Norte the authenticity of the birth certificates of the The entries in the birth certificates point to respondent as the father of these
children submitted by complainant and to verify with Branch 18 of the Regional two children. As pointed out by Judge Agnir in his report:
Trial Court of Batac, Ilocos Norte, the whereabouts of respondent.
Respondent's allegation that these two children were fathered by his son is
On September 15, 1992, the Branch Clerk of Court submitted a report follows: clearly negated by the entries in the Birth Certificates such as the middle
1. The Birth Certificates of Joseph Marlou I. Tapec and Marc Henry I. Tapec, initial, the age, and the occupation of the father listed in the Birth
both children of Honesto Tapec are both authentic according to the Certificates. As pointed out by the complainant in his Reply, respondent's
records of the Local Civil Registrar of Batac, Ilocos Norte which I middle name is "Galano," hence, the middle initial "G" of Honesto Tapec as
personally compared with the copies attached in [sic] the records of the appearing in the Birth Certificates. At the time the Complaint was filed
case. (1989) respondent was 52 years old so that he was 48 years old when Marc
2. As to the status of Honesto Tapec, a certification was issued by Mariano Henry was born on September 23, 1985 and 50 years old when Joseph
Macandog, Clerk of Court V of RTC, Branch 18, a copy of which is hereto Marlou Tapec was born on November 27, 1987, as correctly shown in the
attached as Annex "A" and made an integral part of this report. Birth Certificates. On the other hand, respondent's son Honesto Tapec, Jr.
was more or less 23 years old on September 1985 when Marc Henry was
An additional information was furnished by Hon. Ariston L. Rubio, Executive born and around 25 years old on November 1987 when Joseph Marlou was
Judge and Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 17, Batac, Ilocos Norte, saying that he born. Moreover, the middle name of Honesto, Jr. is "Langaman," the maiden
has already recommended the dismissal of Honesto Tapec for absence without name of his mother Felicitas Langaman who is the legal wife of respondent.
official leave but as of this time, it has not been acted upon by the Supreme Further, the father's occupation listed in the two birth certificates are
Court. "farmer" and "government employee," respectively, which tally with
respondent's circumstances, while his son Honesto Jr. was never an
Thereafter, Judge Agnir submitted his report finding respondent guilty of the employee of the government. Complainant also pointed out in his Reply that
charge of immorality and recommending the imposition of an appropriate if Honesto Jr. was indeed the father of these two children then their status
penalty. should have been indicated as "Natural" instead of "Illegitimate" because in
point of fact Honesto Jr. got married only after the children were born.
ISSUE Clearly, respondent's allegation that his son is the father of the two
WON Tapec is guilty of immorality - YES illegitimate children is a patent falsity.

Complainant had sufficiently established the charge of immorality against The affidavits of Consolacion Inocencio and Benigno Galacgac have no probative
respondent. Noel Rosario, a neighbor of respondent's paramour Consolacion value at all.
Inocencio at Barangay Ablan, Batac, Ilocos Norte, testified that he had often seen
respondent leaving the house of Inocencio in the morning and returning to the The act of respondent of having illicit relations with Consolacion Inocencio is
same in the afternoon, and that this had gone on for quite some time. considered disgraceful and immoral conduct within the purview of Section 36
(b)(5) of Presidential Decree No. 807, otherwise known Civil Service Decree of
Moreover, it was well-known in the neighborhood that respondent was married the Philippines, for which respondent may be subjected to disciplinary action.
and that Inocencio was merely his paramour. Memorandum Circular No. 30, Series of 1989 of the Civil Service Commission
has categorized disgraceful and immoral conduct as a grave offense for which a OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v Vicente LIBRADO, Deputy
penalty of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day shall be imposed for Sheriff, MTCC Branch 1, Iligan City
the first offense, while the penalty of dismissal is imposed for the second Aug 22, 1996 | Per Curiam
offense.
Respondent Vicente P. Librado is deputy sheriff of the Municipal Trial Court in
Inasmuch as the present charge of immorality against respondent constitutes Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, in Iligan City.
the first charge of this nature, the Court shall at this instance suspend  he was charged with violation of R.A. No. 6425 for selling and having in
respondent for six (6) months and one (1) day. While it is true that during the his possession certain quantities of prohibited drugs known as
investigation of this case, respondent has absented himself without official metamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu and marijuana.
leave, the recommendation of his immediate superior, Judge Ariston L. Rubio,  He was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to six (6) years of
for his dismissal on this ground has yet to be received by this Court. The Court imprisonment.
hereby reserves the right to impose the appropriate penalty upon respondent
for this new offense at the proper time. Office of the Court Administrator filed this administrative complaint against him
and he was suspended from office.
TAPEC FOUND GUILTY OF THE CHARGE OF IMMORALITY AND IS  Respondent admits that he had been convicted of violation of R.A. No.
SUSPENDED FOR 6 MONTHS AND 1 DAY WITHOUT PAY. 6425 and claims that he is now on probation. He narrated the incident
that led to his apprehension, as follows:
1) That on September 12, 1995 (sic) at 10:00 PM, a minica driver, a.k.a. JUN
NEGRO . . . together with an unidentified companion, came to my residence
in Pala-o and induced me to procure shabu.

2) On September 13, 1994 at 7:00 PM, Jun Negro, together with a nice
looking lady brought with them two [packs] of shabu worth P1,000 each[,]
[t]wo-third[s] of which was consumed by that lady, [Jun Negro], and myself,
leaving a small quantity which Jun Negro requested me to convert [into]
cash.

3) September 13, 1994-2:00 AM

I was awakened by two men who insisted [on entering into] my
residence. As I opened the door, I . . . learned that it was Jun Negro and a
person [who] introduced himself as Randolph. Then Jun Negro asked me if I
still ha[d] a pack of shabu. I gave to him the remaining pack which he price
(sic) P300.00 to Randolph. The latter gave his P300 pesos to [me] while
requesting for more. But I didnt have any. He later said that I would buy
more this fiesta (sic).

This Jun Negro immediately opened the door, seconds later, Rene Salazar
came in and said: We have a Search Warrant. This Randolph stood up and a
shot took place! I was so nervous and out of my senses. (Note: The Narcom
agents never reported the matter).
 They then conducted their search with their witness, Mr. Nerius M. Actub . . . good morals including acts of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and
He was killed three (3) weeks later, while their alleged agent Jun Negro has social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen or to society in general,
disappeared. contrary to the accepted rule of right and duty between man and man. Indeed
xxx xxx xxx nothing is more depraved than for anyone to be a merchant of death by selling
prohibited drugs, an act which, as this Court said in one case, often breeds other
With all my shortcomings: A) Arrested on September 14, 1994; b) My wife crimes. It is not what we might call a contained crime whose consequences are
had just arrived from USA on September 27, 1994, [and] immediately filed limited to that crime alone, like swindling and bigamy. Court and police records
an Annulment of Marriage; and C) My house has been demolished on show that a significant number of murders, rapes, and similar offenses have
October 2, 1994 . . . I pleaded guilty of said crime. been committed by persons under the influence of dangerous drugs, or while
they are high. While spreading such drugs, the drug-pusher is also abetting,
I am now on probation hoping that Id be given a second chance. through his greed and irresponsibility, the commission of other crimes.

Based on the foregoing facts, Judge Valerio M. Salazar, Executive Judge of RTC- The image of the judiciary is tarnished by conduct, which involves moral
Iligan City, to whom this case was referred for investigation, report and turpitude. While indeed the purpose of the Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as
recommendation, recommends that in view of respondents probation, a penalty amended) is to save valuable human material, it must not be forgotten that
short of dismissal be meted out against respondent to provide him with the unlike pardon probation does not obliterate the crime of which the person
incentive and the will to rehabilitate himself and apply his time to his work as a under probation has been convicted. The reform and rehabilitation of the
judicial employee. probationer cannot justify his retention in the government service. He may seek
to reenter government service, but only after he has shown that he is fit to serve
ISSUE once again. It cannot be repeated too often that a public office is a public trust,
WON a judicial employee under probation for a crime involving moral turpitude which demands of those in its service the highest degree of morality.
may be readmitted to public service – NO.
RESPONDENT IS DISMISSED FROM SERVICE WITH FORFEITURE OF ALL
This case involves a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude as a ground LEAVE CREDITS AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND WITH DQ FOR
for disciplinary action under the Civil Service Law. REEMPLOYMENT IN THE GOVENRMENT.

Under the rules of the Civil Service Commission, conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude is considered a grave offense punishable, upon first
commission, by dismissal. As the SC has held, it alone suffices as a ground for
the dismissal of a civil service employee.

Drug-pushing, as a crime, has been variously condemned as an especially

vicious crime, one of the most pernicious evils that has ever crept into our
society. For those who become addicted to it not only slide into the ranks of the
living dead, what is worse, they become a grave menace to the safety of law-
abiding members of society, while peddlers of drugs are actually agents of
destruction. They deserve no less than the maximum penalty [of death].

There is no doubt that drug-pushing is a crime which involves moral turpitude

and implies everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v Judge Lorenzo VENERACION Meanwhile, Justice Benipayo directed Judge Veneracion to desist from assigning
and Branch Clerk of Court Rogelio Linatoc, both of the RTC, Br 47, Manila any task to "Sheriff" Rogelio A. Tria and to prevent him from holding office in his
June 21, 2000 | Pardo, J. sala. On January 18, 1999 Judge Veneracion ordered Rogelio A. Tria to return to
his post at the EIIB.
Nov 4, 1998. Merlinia Santos filed with the Court Administrator a sworn letter-
complaint against Rogelio Tria, Acting Sheriff IV, Br 47, RTC Manila, assailing the On January 29, 1999, Court Administrator Benipayo recommended that the
acts of Sheriff Tria in the implementation of a writ of execution in a civil case for memorandum report be considered as an administrative complaint against
support. Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion for grave misconduct and violation of Canon 3,
Rule 3.08 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and against Atty. Rogelio M. Linatoc for
Court Admin Alfredo Benipayo then ordered an investigation of the status of grave misconduct.
“sheriff” Tria.  the Court adopted a resolution considering the memorandum as an
 Investigation revealed that “sheriff” Tria was not an employee of the administrative complaint against Judge Veneracion and Atty. Linatoc,
judiciary at the time he acted as "sheriff" in the civil case where Santos
was a party. On August 16, 1999, Judge Veneracion filed an answer, contending that there
 The record showed that on August 9, 1988, Mr. Rogelio A. Tria was was nothing irregular about a judge signing a writ of execution
appointed process server of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47,  it had been his practice as a matter of court policy.
Manila. However, on January 1, 1995, he transferred to the Economic  He professed good faith in detailing Mr. Rogelio A. Tria, an employee of
Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB), Department of Finance, as the EIIB with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Manila and his
an Intelligence Officer. He was not thereafter re-employed in the designation as "Acting Deputy Sheriff" assigned to serve writs of
judiciary. execution in cases therein, properly supported by documents.
 The latest authority for the detail was issued on October 5, 1998, by
The investigation disclosed the following facts: Executive Secretary Ronaldo B. Zamora, to Col. Wilfred A. Nicolas,
"1. that the writ of execution dated July 3, 1998 was signed by Judge Lorenzo Commissioner, EIIB, recommending approval of Mr. Tria's detail with
B. Veneracion addressed to Mr. Rogelio A. Tria as Acting Sheriff IV; Branch 47, as requested by retired Supreme Court Justice Emilio A.
"2. that the Sheriff's Return dated July 30, 1998 was signed by Mr. Rogelio A. Gancayco.
Tria as Acting Sheriff IV; and
"3. that the Notice of Levy and Sale dated July 3, 1998 was signed by Mr. Tria Atty. Linatoc filed an answer denying involvement in any anomaly.
as Acting Sheriff IV."  He averred that there was nothing anomalous with the issuance of a
writ of execution signed by a presiding judge.
The investigation further disclosed that in 1985, Mr. Antonio Velasco was the  He denied participation in the temporary detail of Mr. Rogelio A. Tria
duly appointed Deputy Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Manila. with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Manila as "Acting Deputy
Subsequently, however, Judge Veneracion assigned Deputy Sheriff IV Antonio Sheriff IV."
Velasco to the Office of the Clerk of Court in order that Rogelio A. Tria, who was  He expressed good faith in believing that "Sheriff" Tria's appointment
not an employee of the judiciary, could be designated to perform the functions was legal since it was supported by various documents authorizing his
of "Acting Deputy Sheriff IV" considering the position vacant and authorized to detail with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Manila.
carry out the writ of execution.
This irregularity was not limited to the period July to August 1998. According to the investigation conducted by CA Justice Fernando, on January 1,
 The Court Administrator concluded that Judge Veneracion and Branch 1995, Rogelio A. Tria was employed with EIIB, an agency under the Department
Clerk of Court Rogelio M. Linatoc had knowledge of the irregularity. of Finance. However, from January 2, 1995 to June 30, 1995 and January 1, 1997
to June 30, 1997, Tria was detailed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47,
Manila as Acting Deputy Sheriff IV, upon the request of Judge Veneracion. From  There was no vacancy even temporarily in the office of branch sheriff of
January 1, 1998 to April 22, 1998, Rogelio A. Tria was detailed with Branch 47, Branch 47, and the judge cannot appoint or designate any person of his
at the request of former Justice Emilio A. Gancayco. choice to act as sheriff.
 His action showed persistent disregard of the rule in the designation of
It will be noticed, however, that when "sheriff" Tria implemented the writ of acting sheriffs. This act constitutes usurpation of the appointing
execution in Civil Case No. 97-84356 on July 3, 1998, he had no appointment or authority of the Supreme Court amounting to grave misconduct in
designation authorizing his assignment as "Acting Deputy Sheriff IV" of the office.
Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Manila. Nor was he a duly bonded official.
As a member of the bench, Judge Veneracion is conclusively presumed to know
On August 13, 1998, Judge Veneracion requested EIIB Commissioner Colonel the law and is "expected to keep abreast of all laws and prevailing
Wilfred Nicolas for Mr. Rogelio A. Tria's assignment as Deputy Sheriff of jurisprudence" which he clearly failed to do in this instance.
Branch 47.  Judge Veneracion did not observe the Constitutional and regulatory
 Colonel Lara denied the request. Nonetheless, respondent Judge prescriptions. He persistently disregarded well-known legal rules in the
Veneracion assigned "sheriff" Tria to execute writs in cases therein. designation of acting sheriffs. By such action, he repeatedly usurped the
appointing authority of the Supreme Court. Thus, it amounts to grave
ISSUE misconduct in office.
WON an employee of EIIB, an agency under the Department of Finance, of the  Since 1989, Judge Veneracion has made repeated requests for the detail
executive branch of the government, may be assigned by that agency on detail of Mr. Tria to his court. He even made further request for the detail of
with the judiciary, specifically to the RTC as deputy sheriff, upon the request of "sheriff" Tria from the EIIB after the head of the EIIB had denied such
the presiding judge of the court without the authority of the SC - NO request.
 Judge Veneracion appealed the denial to the Executive Secretary, and
Judge Veneracion’s repeated requests for Mr. Rogelio A. Tria's detail with the even asked the help of a retired Supreme Court justice to effectuate his
Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Manila, as Acting Deputy Sheriff IV, a position appeal. And what triggered the complaint at bar against respondent
that was not vacant, contravened Article VIII, Section 5 (6) of the Constitution, Judge Veneracion was an act of corruption by "Acting Deputy Sheriff IV"
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 07 dated August 27, 1987, re: Rogelio A. Tria in the enforcement of a writ of execution that Judge
appointments to vacant positions in the judiciary, and Supreme Court Veneracion assigned directly to him.
Administrative Circular No. 12, dated October 1, 1985, addressed to all judges  He personally signed the writ of execution, a function normally
and clerks of court of the Regional Trial Courts, prescribing guidelines and delegated to the branch clerk of court. Worse, Judge Veneracion did not
procedure in the service and execution of court writs and processes. even require "sheriff" Tria to post a sheriff’s bond, as required by
law. "Sheriff" Tria demanded P250.00 from the prevailing party for
Administrative Circular No. 12 provides that "in the absence of deputy sheriff his taxi fare from his residence in Antipolo to Manila, RTC.
appointed and assigned in his sala" the judge may at any time designate any of
the deputy sheriffs in the office of the clerk of court. However, the judge shall Atty. Linatoc, as Branch Clerk of Court is likewise liable for misconduct in office
not be allowed to designate the deputy sheriff of another branch without first for following the unlawful orders of Judge Veneracion regarding Mr. Rogelio A.
securing the consent of the presiding judge thereof. Trias assignment as "Deputy Sheriff" of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47,
 Judge Veneracion failed to observe the Constitutional and regulatory Manila without the authority of the Supreme Court.
prescriptions. Judge Veneracion had no power to assign on temporary
detail his duly appointed sheriff to the office of the clerk of court. Justice Fernando recommended the dismissal of Judge Veneracion and Branch
 The authority to detail employees of his branch to the office of the clerk Clerk of Court Atty. Linatoc, with prejudice to reemployment with any other
of court is vested in the executive judge. branch of the government.
Although the Court agrees with the factual findings and conclusions of Justice direct participation in the irregularity, we are inclined to be more lenient with
Fernando, the Court, after due consideration, tempers the severity of the him.
recommended dismissal of respondent judge considering his long service in the
government and the judiciary and his obedience to the order of the Court JUDGE VENERACION FOUND GUILTY OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE
Administrator directing him to terminate the questioned designation of sheriff AND IS ORDERED SUSPENDED FROM OFFICE FOR A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS,
Tria, thus, evincing remorse and repentance for his unauthorized acts. WITHOUT PAY AND ALLOWANCES.

As to respondent Atty. Linatoc, SC considers his dismissal from the service as The Court orders Judge Veneracion to cease and desist immediately from
too harsh a penalty. His fault was in following blindly the orders of the rendering judgment, or issuing resolution or order in any pending case or
respondent judge, even though these violated the Constitution and circulars of continuing with any judicial action or proceeding whatsoever, effective
the Supreme Court. upon notice of this resolution.

Judge Veneracion’s outright disregard of the well-established separation of BRANCH CLERK OF COURT LINATOC IS FOUND GUILTY OF SIMPLE
powers of the three great departments of government and his exercise of MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE AND IS FINED PHP5,000 WITH WARNING THAT
powers beyond his judicial competence and in defiance of directives of the REPETITION OF THE SAME OR SIMILAR ACTS WOULD BE DEALT WITH
Supreme Court undermined the independence of the judiciary Judge Veneracion MORE SEVERELY
cannot hide behind the authorizations issued by officials of the executive branch
of the government, giving an impression of legality of his actions. Administrative
Circular No. 12, dated October 1, 1985, and Administrative Circular No. 7, dated
April 27, 1987 clearly provide for the implementation of the Supreme Courts
Constitutional power of appointment of judiciary employees, including sheriffs
and the assignment of acting deputy sheriffs to the courts. Judge Veneracion
repeatedly violated, nay defied, these circulars.

Finally, it is pertinent to state that on March 11, 1997, the Court found Judge
Veneracion guilty of gross ignorance of the law and imposed on him a fine of
P10,000.00 for disregarding a complainants right to procedural due process
with warning that the commission of the same or similar infraction shall
be dealt with more severely.

As Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Linatoc has administrative supervision over all
other employees of the court and ought to know that a non-judicial person has
no place in the judicial service. His admission that he did not find any reason to
report to the Supreme Court the presence of "Sheriff" Rogelio A. Tria in Branch
47 since the orders for his assignment came from Judge Veneracion showed
gross ignorance of his role as branch clerk of court. He has the obligation to
report to the Supreme Court anyone in his staff without proper appointment
from the Supreme Court. As Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Linatoc has control of
the employment records of the courts staff. However, considering his lack of
RTC MAKATI MOVEMENT AGAINST GRAFT AND CORRUPTION v ATTY.  Following the rule in Anonymous Complaint against District Judge
Inocencio DUMLAO, Acting Clerk of Court of the RTC Valenzuela, MM Gibson Araula, CFI of Southern Leyte, Branch X that anonymous
complaints are acted upon where the charge could be fully borne by
Susan Quino v Atty. Dumlao public records of indubitable integrity, thus needing no corroboration
Aug 9, 1995 | Kapunan, J. by evidence to be offered by complainant

Respondent Dumlao, then Branch Clerk of Court of Br 134, RTC Makati was Respondent denied all the charges and branded the allegations as mere
charged by the RTC Makati Movement against Graft and Corruption for allegedly conjectures, hearsay and rumors without legal or factual basis
engaging in usurious activities, immorality and violation of the Anti-Graft and  Since December 1992, he has been engaged in a confidential mission to
Corrupt Practices Act. help the Court Administrator expose the widespread corruption in the
 The complaint alleged that Respondent withheld the salary checks of all Makati RTC and he surmised that this is the reason for the "anonymous
RTC Makati employees to compel them to borrow money from him at poison letter" against him
usurious rates, as evidenced by Trust Agreements.
 The amounts loaned are collected through his alleged paramour, Ms. Complainant movement denigrated respondent’s claim as prime crusader
Piedad Rufo (now Piedad R. Cruz), a clerk employed at the Cash Section against graft and corruption. His appointment as a confidential agent was
of the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC Makati challenged in view of his removal from the LTO for being notoriously
 He was also charged with allegedly demanding money from party undesirable.
litigants and lawyers in exchange for favorable action on their cases.
The Office of the CJ received another letter-complaint against Respondent,
The letter-complaint was supported by: signed by one Susan Quinto for:
 Petition signed by about 90 employees of the Makati RTC requesting 1) Corruption and dereliction of duty for exacting money from court
that the remittances of the employees' checks, allowances and other litigants in the pretext that the amounts exacted are his commissioner's
benefits be done either by registered mail addressed to the respective fees, yet, he does not prepare his reports:
Branch Clerks or OIC's or by personal representation; 2) For operating a lending agency with the use of the facilities of the court
 Memorandum of then Makati, RTC Clerk of Court Maximo C. Contreras and for exacting from court employees usurious interest:
directing the release of treasury warrants to the payees only, otherwise 3) For criminal negligence in the performance of his duties as Branch
the release should bear his approval; Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 234, Makati, Metro Manila
 Complaint for Sum of Money filed by respondent Inocencio E. Dumlao
against a certain Nelson Olandesca based on a promissory note In the course of the investigation conducted by Executive Judge Abad Santos of
 Affidavit complaint of respondent Inocencio E. Dumlao for estafa (trust RTC Makati, no one appeared in behalf of the RTC Movement although
agreement) against Adora Balinguit filed with the fiscal's office of complainant Quinto testified and adduced evidence to substantiate her
Makati complaint. He made the following findings:
 Subpoena issued for estafa (violation of trust agreement) where the  Private Complainant has shown through court records that respondent
complainant is respondent Dumlao against one Lorie Ann Martinez who had charged commissioner’s fees for the reception of evidence in at
was then a court employee of Makati RTC Branch 149. Attached to the least 2 ex-parte cases, both pending before Br 134. Both cases were
subpoena are two (2) receipts signed by Martinez as trustee and dismissed for failure to prosecute only to find out that plaintiffs had
Dumlao as trustor. already presented their evidence ex-parte before Respondent. Court
believes him to be liable since in the first place, he admitted having
Case was given due course demanded certain amounts from the parties. Nowhere in the Rules is
 the Clerk of Court allowed to charge and collect commissioner's fees for suspicion. Indeed, every employee of the judiciary should be an example of
the reception of evidence ex-parte. integrity, uprightness and honesty.
 Allegation of a certain Atty. Eugenio Macababayao that respondent
asked Php1,000 from him when he requested that his case be set for A Branch Clerk of a court of justice is described as an essential officer in any
hearing was unrefuted. Because he refused to pay, the case was not set judicial system, whose office is the hub of activities, both adjudicative and
for hearing. administrative and who occupy a position of great importance and
 Re: usurious activities, the evidence of complainant are so responsibility in the framework of judicial administration. Clerks of Court are,
preponderant that it cannot but be concluded that respondent was into thus, required to be individuals of competence, honesty and probity specifically
usurious activities on government time and resources. The testimony of mandated to safeguard the integrity of the court and its proceedings, to earn
his runner details his collection process. Several court employees respect therefor, to maintain loyalty thereto and to the judge as the superior
testified. Documentary evidence attached to the complaint convinced officer, to maintain the authenticity and correctness of court records and to
the court. uphold the confidence of the public in the administration of justice.
 Re: dereliction of duty. Examining the Monthly Reports signed by
Dumlao and the inventory submitted by the present presiding judge Re: demanding and receiving “commissioner’s fees,” the charges are
makes it apparent that while Dumlao reported that their court had only meritorious.
2 cases pending decision for the month of April, 1993; 4 for May 1993; The Manual for Clerks of Courts, which in essence is the "Bible for Clerks of
and 2 for June 1993; yet the inventory submitted by Judge P. Arcangel Courts" specifically provides that:
as of 13 December 1993 shows about 120 cases were submitted for No Branch Clerk of Court shall demand and/or receive commissioner's fees
decision or with unresolved incidents some of which as early as 1983. for reception of evidence ex-parte.
. . . The court shall allow the commissioner, other than an employee of the
Exec Judge Abad Santos recommended the dismissal of Respondent from court, such reasonable compensation as the circumstances of the case
service on grounds of grave misconduct and dishonesty prejudicial to the best warrant. . . .
interest of the service and acts unbecoming a court officer.
 Despite the express prohibition, a bill for payment of Php2,000 as
ISSUE commissioner’s fees and stenographer’s fees for the ex-parte
WON dismissal is proper – YES presentation of plaintiff’s evidence was issued and signed by
Respondent
Public service requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline. A public servant  Respondent's explanation that he was not the commissioner appointed
must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity. The in the aforementioned case and that he did not receive any
administration of justice is a sacred task. By the very nature of their duties and money insufficient in view of his categorical admission on two (2)
responsibilities, all those involved in it must faithfully adhere to, hold inviolate, occasions that he signed the said bill.
and invigorate the principle solemnly enshrined in the 1987 Constitution that a  Respondent's admission that he is unfamiliar with the Manual of the
public office is a public trust; and all public officers and employees must at all Clerks of Courts and is not even aware of its existence does not help
times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, him any. In his Supplemental Affidavit dated 29 July 1994, he
integrity, loyalty and efficiency. The conduct and behavior of everyone categorically stated:
connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the 15.1 That respondent has no personal knowledge of the
presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy existence of the Manual for Clerks of Court, published in 1991,
burden of responsibility. Their conduct, at all times, must not only be prohibiting the collection of commissioner's fees. In fact, herein
characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be above respondent must admit that he saw the Manual for the first time
 only on July 28, 1994, during the hearing of this case, when the it is seldom that I assist Atty. Dumlao, it is almost always me assisting
Executive Judge showed it to him. the Judge during the trial.
 This was confirmed by him during his cross-exam, that he relies on his  Atty. Dumlao is generally absent during hearings.
13 years of experience as guidelines in performing his duties as Clerk of
Court. As a court officer, he should keep abreast of the various changes Respondent’s failure to prepare proper or correct monthly reports of cases is a
and amendments of the law. serious breach of duty.
 One of the basic responsibilities of a Branch Clerk of Court is the
The affidavit of Atty. Eugenio Macababayao Jr recanting his previous testimony preparation of the monthly report of cases to be submitted to this Court
that respondent demanded Php1k from his client for the case to be set for  Reliance on the so-called Clerks-in-charge who prepare the actual
hearing, was not well-taken. reports, or particularly on their initials which allegedly indicate
 Atty. Macababayao admitted that Respondent neglected to fully explain accuracy and veracity is insufficient and is a lazy and sloppy manner of
the purpose of the amount. His failure to explain the purpose of the executing one's duties and responsibilities.
money reflects poorly on his conduct as Branch Clerk of Court and how  This practice cannot be considered as proper supervision since
he carries out the functions of his office. Respondent in the above-mentioned procedure practically does next to
nothing, his only contribution or input is his signature. Branch clerks of
Re: the lending business court must realize that their administrative functions are just as vital to
Court concurs with the findings of Exec Judge Abad Santos the prompt and proper administration of justice. They are charged with
 The documentary exhibits presented by Complainant leave no doubt as the efficient recording, filing and management of court records, besides
to the existence of Respondent's lending operation, some of which even having administrative supervision over court personnel. They play a
led to the filing (by Respondent) of criminal charges against borrowers key role in the complement of the court and cannot be permitted to
who failed to pay their loans under the so-called trust slacken on their jobs under one pretext or another. They must be
agreements. Such despicable acts cannot be tolerated by this Court assiduous in performing their official duties and in supervising and
 Respondent's reliance on CB Circular No. 905 implementing Monetary managing court dockets and records.
Board Resolution No. 225 which effectively suspended the provisions of
the Usury Law is misplaced. Although Respondent may not be ATTY DUMLAO IS DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE WITH FORFEITURE OF
criminally or civilly liable, he is still administratively liable under the ALL BENEFITS AND WITH PREJUDICE TO REINSTATEMENT IN
Civil Service Law where lending money at usurious rates of interests is GOVERNMENT SERVICE.
specifically listed as grounds for disciplinary action.
 By engaging in lending activities, Respondent has caused dishonor to
courts of justice.

Re: dereliction of duty

Court also concurs with the findings of Exec Judge Abad Santos
 One of the duties of a Branch Clerk of Court is to attend all court
sessions. In the instant case, however, Respondent has seriously
neglected this duty to the prejudice of public interest.
 Witness Rolando Santos testified that his duty is purely to interpret
testimonies and to assist the Clerk of Court during the trial that is
mandated by the Supreme Court, but during the course of the hearings
Maritoni NIEVA v Saturnina ALVAREZ-EDAD, Branch Clerk of Court MTC,  Ranas followed up the case, he tried to hand P500.00 to respondent, but
Br 32, QC she rejected it because she was expecting to receive P1,500.00. In the
Jan 31, 2005 | Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. presence of other court employees, she shouted at Ranas, Yuong
hinihingi kong legal, iyang negosyo ninyo ang illegal dahil ang taas taas
An administrative complaint was filed by Maritoni Nieva, former legal ng singil ninyo sa interest. Tapos hindi ninyo babayaran ang
researcher of the QC MeTC Br 32, charging Saturnina Alvarez-Edad with: commissioners fee!
1) Falsification of daily time records;  Upon respondent’s instruction, Judith Cueto, Stenographer II, prepared
2) Dishonesty; a receipt for P500.00 as payment for stenographic notes. Respondent
3) Demanding or receiving commissioners fee for reception of evidence ex- then signed the receipt for the P500.00 but kept P300.00 for herself and
parte; gave Cueto only P200.00.
4) Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service;
5) Issuing certified true copies of warrant of arrest without payment of the Respondent allegedly harassed complainant and Helen Santiago, stenographer.
corresponding fees; and  respondent indicated in the logbook that complainant attended office
6) Discourtesy in the conduct of official business. for only one half day. When complainant insisted that she was present
the whole day and was sitting beside her (respondent) in the afternoon,
It was alleged that respondent falsified her daily time records. respondent replied sarcastically that she did not see her that same
 The entries therein of the time of her arrival in the office and departure afternoon.
therefrom vary from her entries in the logbook  One morning, Respondent prematurely closed the logbook at 8:20 A.M.
 Complainant submitted xerox copies of respondent’s DTR and logbook by indicating therein that it was already 8:30 A.M. When Helen Santiago
showing such variance.2 politely apprised respondent that it was still 8:20 A.M., respondent
tauntingly remarked, Eh di ilagay mong 8:29. Helen then reported the
It was also alleged that she demanded from one Billy Ranas, a messenger from matter to the Presiding Judge who settled their dispute. However,
Unifunds, Php1.5k as commissioner’s fee in connection with the ex-parte respondent still issued a memorandum to Helen directing her to
hearing in Unifunds v Sps Ann and Jose Aquino et al. explain within 72 hours why no disciplinary action should be taken
against her for her disrespectful and discourteous conduct.
2

Date Daily Time Record Office Log Book She also allowed Lily Monteverde, accused in a criminal case, to post bail
April 6, 1998 7:20 sick leave 7:20-12:00 12:30-4:30 although the latter did not personally appear in court, in violation of the Rules
of Court.
May 14, 1998 7:35-12:00 12:30-4:30 7:35-12:00 12:00-2:30 Respondent issued CTCs of warrants of arrest in People v Raquel Rodriguez,
without requiring the requesting party to pay the corresponding fees.
May 28, 1998 7:50-12:00 12:30 7:50-12:00 12:30-4:30
Respondent displayed conduct unbecoming of a public servant by publicly
June 18, 1998 7:55-12:00 12:30-4:00 7:55-12:00 12:30-4:30
humiliating complainant, the lawyers, the accused, and the members of her staff.
 Respondent unjustly charged Danilo Dela Cruz, a utility worker, with
June 26, 1998 8:00-12:00 halfday (sic) 8:00-12:00 12:30-4:30
insubordination. As a result, Dela Cruz was dismissed from the service.
August 6,1998 8:00-4:00 8:00-12:00 12:30-4:30  Complainant was forced to resign as legal researcher of Branch 32 on
respondent’s pretext that she did not live up to her expectations.
August 12,1998 7:15-12:00 12:30-4:30 7:15-12:00 12:30-4:00
Respondent denied all the charges against her. She submitted her dtr and the  DCA believes that she did not commit dishonesty when she demanded
logbook commissioner’s fee. Respondent is guilty of Violation of the Manual for
Date Daily Time Record Office Log Book Clerks of Court.3
April 6, 1998 7:20 sick leave 7:20-12:00 12:30-4:30  For all intents and purposes, respondent is in reality collecting
commissioners fee when she demanded payment from Unifunds
May 14, 1998 7:35-12:00 12:30-2:00 7:35-12:00 12:30-2:30 through messenger Billy Ranas and Documentation Officer Melinda De
Guzman even though she issued a receipt in the guise of collecting
May 28, 1998 7:50-12:00 12:30 7:50-12:00 12:30-4:30 payment for transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) in behalf of Court
Stenographer Cueto. When respondent gave Court Stenographer Judith
June 18, 1998 7:55-12:00 12:30-4:00 7:55-12:00 12:30-4:30 Cueto the sum of P200.00 pesos, she is merely giving the latter her
share for transcribing the stenographic notes of the case of Unifunds.
June 26, 1998 8:00-12:00 halfday (sic) 8:00-12:00 12:30-4:30  The intent or motive to gain out of Cueto’s collectibles for the payment
of TSN is totally absent. In fact, it was established during the
August 6,1998 8:00-4:00 8:00-12:00 12:30-4:30
investigation that respondent collected the sum of P500.00 in the
presence of the other staff and especially Court Stenographer Judith
August 12,1998 7:15-12:00 12:30-4:30 7:15-12:00 12:30-4:30
Cueto. The latter, upon receipt of the P200.00 pesos, did not object or
complain.
Executive Judge Gregorio Dayrit exonerated respondent from all the charges
 Presumably, respondent and Court Stenographer had a previous
except dishonesty.
understanding or some sort of an agreement to this kind of
 Investigating Judge Dayrit found that respondent demanded from the
arrangement, which they call it a package deal when conducting ex-
representative of Unifunds P1,500.00 as commissioners fee and
parte hearing. As testified by Court Stenographer Cueto, the normal fee
received P500.00 in the guise of payment for stenographic notes.
for ex-parte hearing, as far as their court is concerned, is P1,500.00
 She kept P300.00 for herself without the consent of Judith Cueto, a
pesos, with the following sharing scheme: P1,000.00 goes to the Branch
stenographer.
Clerk, then P500.00 goes to the Court Stenographer. Were it not for this
 Judge Dayrit then recommended that respondent be found guilty of two
kind of arrangement, respondent could have pocketed everything
(2) counts of dishonesty and be suspended from the service for one (1)
instead of giving part of it to Cueto. Since respondent was able to
year without pay and be disqualified for promotion or from receiving
collect P500.00 pesos only, she gave Cueto the P200.00 and retained for
any increase in salary during the pendency of the suspension, pursuant
herself the P300.00 pesos. Thus, the absence of an intent or motive to
to Section 46 (b), Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order
gain.
292; Section 22, Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O.
 Sec 30, Rule 30 of RoC, is very specific that: in default or ex-parte
No. 292; and Section 7 of Republic Act No.6713
hearings, and in any case where the parties agree in writing, the
This was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report
and recommendation
 Deputy Court Admin Christopher Lock found the findings and 3
(a) Section B, Chapter II (p. 36), which states that: No Branch Clerk of Court shall
recommendation well-taken except for the charge of dishonest and demand and/or receive commissioners fees for reception of evidence ex-parte;'
misconduct for demanding & collecting commissioner’s fee and
(b) Section D.7, Chapter IV(p. 74), which states that: The Court shall allow the
commissioner, other than an employee of the Court, such reasonable
compensation as the circumstances of the case warrant to be taxed as costs
against the defeated party, or apportioned, as justice requires.
 court may delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk of court Respondent does not meet the strict judicial standard when she demanded and
who is a member of the bar. collected commissioners fee.
 As a Branch Clerk of Court who is a non-lawyer, she ought to know that
under the said rule it is only a member of the bar who is authorized to For violating a Supreme Court rule, directive or circular, the OCA recommends
receive evidence ex-parte. Records reveal that there is no order of the that respondent be fined P1,000.00 and be severely reprimanded. The OCA
presiding judge showing that she was authorized to act as such. stresses that after all, respondent is a first-time offender.
 In the present case, the facts do not warrant her dismissal from service
considering that only one out of 7 charges was proved. The penalty recommended is too light.
 Penalty recommended by Exec Judge is too stiff to the administrative
offense committed by respondent. This is the first time that respondent Under the facts of this case, respondents transgression constitutes simple
was administratively charged after service the judiciary for 10 years. misconduct, classified as a less grave offense under Section 52 (B), Rule IV of the
 DCA recommended a fine of Php1k and that she is severely Revised Uniform Rules On Administrative Cases In The Civil Service, thus:
reprimanded with warning that a repetition of a similar act shall be RULE IV PENALTIES
dealt with more severely. Section 52. Classification of Offenses. Administrative offenses with
corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending
ISSUE on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
WON penalty recommended is proper – NO. xxx
B. The following are less grave offenses with the corresponding penalties:
Respondent overstepped her powers and responsibilities. The records xxx
convincingly show that she demanded and received a commissioner’s fee from a 2. Simple Misconduct
litigant in an ex-parte proceedings, a violation of the Manual for Clerks of Court 1st Offense Suspension
which proves that No Branch Clerk of Court shall demand and/or receive 1 mo. 1 day to 6 mos.
commissioner’s fees for the reception of evidence ex-parte. 2nd Offense Dismissal

To be entitled to reasonable compensation, a commissioner must not be RESPONDENT FOUND GUILTY OF DEMANDING/RECEIVING
an employee of the court. Section D (7), Chapter IV of the same Manual for COMMISSIONER’S FEE AND IS HEREBY SUSPENDED FOR 2 MONTHS
Clerks of Court provides that The Court shall allow the commissioner, other WITHOUT PAY AND WARNED THAT A REPETITION SHALL BE DEALT WITH
than an employee of the court, such reasonable compensation as the MORE SEVERELY.
circumstances of the case warrant to be taxed as costs against the defeated
party, or apportioned, as justice requires.

Respondent, as a court employee, has no authority to demand or receive any

commissioners fee. In RTC Makati Movement Against Graft and Corruption vs.
Atty. Inocencio E. Dumlao, Acting Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela,
Metro Manila, the Court held:
The Manual for Clerks of Courts, which in essence is the Bible for Clerks of
Courts, specifically provides that No Branch Clerk of Court shall demand and/or
receive commissioners fees for reception of evidence ex parte. The court shall
allow the commissioner, other than an employee of the court, such
reasonable compensation as the circumstances of the case warrant.
 On September 21, 1987, the DFA required her to refund the amount
Rosalinda De Perio SANTOS v Exec Sec Catalino Macaraig and Sec Raul representing her daughter's round-trip ticket since DFA received a copy of the
Manglapus "facture" from the travel agency showing that the amount of SFr.1,597 was in
April 10, 1992 | Grino-Aquino, J. payment her trip and that the sum of SFr. 673 represented the cost of her
daughter's portion of the ticket.
Petitioner is a career service officer with the rank of Chief of Mission II and
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, was appointed on July 24, On October 5, 1987, her co-workers led by Deputy Armando Maglaque, and
1986, by her Excellency, President Corazon C. Aguino, to the position of some MISUNPHIL employees filed administrative charges against her for
Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the Philippine Mission to the "incompetence; inefficient; corrupt and dishonest activities; rude and uncouth
United Nations and other International Organizations with station in Geneva, manners; abusive and high-handed behavior; irregular and highly illegal
Switzerland. transactions involving funds of the mission.

On March 17, 1988, the Board of Foreign Service Administration (BFSA)

April 6, 1987. Petitioner sought a LOA from the DFA to spend the Easter
constituted a new 5-man investigating committee to evaluate the evidence
Holidays in NY, at no expense to the government.
presented by the parties. The committee found her liable for misconduct only,
 She bought two (2) non-transferable, non-refundable discounted
and recommended dismissal of the other charges. They also recommended that
tickets costing SFr. 1,597 for herself and her adopted daughter
she be reprimanded and recalled to Manila.

Before they could take the trip however, petitioner was instructed to proceed to In a letter-decision dated April 27, 1988, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs
Havana, Cuba to attend a UNCTAD conference as Philippine delegate. Petitioner affirmed the BFSA's recommendation declaring Petitioner guilty of the lesser
is entitled for official trip outside her station (Geneva) for the cost of airplane offense of misconduct, instead of dishonesty, meted to her the penalty of
ticket costing to SFr. 2,996 for Geneva-New York-Geneva portion of her Geneva- reprimand, and recalled her to the home office.
New York-Havana-New York-Geneva trip. Instead of buying an economy
roundtrip ticket, petitioner used for the Geneva-New York-Geneva portion of Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that she was denied
her trip the two (2) discounted tickets costing only SFr. 1,597 for herself and due process when she was declared guilty of misconduct although it was not
her daughter Pia. They left Geneva for New York en route to Havana on April 15, one of the charges against her.
1987. On the same day, the DFA approved her application for a leave of absence
with pay from April 27 to May 1, 1987. After the Havana Conference, she and On March 30, 1989, President Aquino issued Administrative Order No. 122
her daughter spent her vacation leave in New York before returning to Geneva finding petitioner guilty of dishonesty (instead of misconduct) and imposed
(Ibid.). Instead of claiming reimbursement for SFr. 2,996, she requested, and upon her the penalty of reprimand, with recall to the home office.
received, reimbursement of only SFr. 1,597 which she spent for the Geneva to
New York, and New York to Geneva portion of her trip, thereby effecting savings Hence this petition for certiorari alleging that the President's "reprimand and
of SFr.1,399 for the Government. recall orders are not supported by substantial evidence and were issued with
gross abuse of discretion and serious error of law".
On September 16, 1987, the DFA ask her to explain why the Mission paid for
plane ticket of infant Pia de Perio-Santos (petitioner's daughter) Geneva-New
ISSUE:
York-Geneva when petitioner was not authorized to accompany her adopting
Whether the petitioner was unjustly found guilty and whether her recall to
mother at government expense.
Manila was a valid exercise of power by the Secretary - YES
Petitioner replied that the air fare tickets were for her only and did not include
her daughter whose trip was paid from her personal funds
A review of the records fails to yield any evidence of dishonesty on the part of not removal from office but merely an expiration of his/her term (Cadiente vs.
the petitioner, or an intent to cheat and defraud the government. Her failure to Santos, 142 SCRA 280).
disclose the fact that her discounted tickets included the fare for her child, was
harmless and inconsequential as the two (2) discounted Geneva-New York- An incumbent of a primarily confidential position holds office at the pleasure of
Geneva tickets for herself and her daughter were in fact inseparable, the appointing power. When the pleasure turns into displeasure, the incumbent
intransferable, non-cancellable and non-refundable, in effect one whole fare is not removed or dismissed from office — his term merely expires (Ingles vs.
only, for purposes of the discount. The mother and daughter tickets were, in the Mutuc, 26 SCRA 171).
words of the petitioner, "married to each other". One without the other would
"Primarily confidential" denotes "not only confidence in the aptitude of the
not have been entitled to the discount. And if she left her daughter behind, it
appointee for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which insures
would have made no difference in the fare because the ticket was not
freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of
refundable.
betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state" (Pinero vs.
Hechanova, 18 SCRA 417; citing De los Santos vs. Mallare, 87 Phil. 289).
Using the discounted tickets was beneficial to the Government for they cost
50% less than an economy roundtrip ticket that the petitioner was entitled to It is the fact of loss of confidence, not the reason for it, that is important and
purchase for the same trip if she travelled alone. She obviously saved money controlling. As holder of a primarily confidential position, petitioner's foreign
(SFr.1,399) for the government by using her discounted tickets even if her assignment was at the pleasure of the President. The recall order terminating
daughter's fare was included therein. her tour of duty in Geneva and returning her to the home office was merely a
change of post or transfer of location of work.
Nevertheless, the Court is not disposed to disturb the order of the DFA and the
Office of the President recalling the petitioner to the home office. There is no Petitioner may not justifiably assail the appointment of Narcisa Escaler as her
merit in the petitioner's contention that her tour of duty in Geneva was for four replacement in Geneva because the power to appoint is essentially
(4) years. The Court held that under a secret Executive Order No. 168, provides discretionary. The appointing power, the President, has the right of choice
that a person who has completed a minimum of one year of service, the which she may exercise freely, according to her best lights (Pamantasan ng
Secretary of Foreign Affairs can transfer that person to Manila for reassignment Lungsod ng Maynila vs. Court of Appeals, 140 SCRA 22). This Court may not
and did not have to be explained and justified. The Secretary, as an alter ego of order the reinstatement of the petitioner to her former position in Geneva for
the President, act with the implied imprimatur of the President herself, unless that would be tantamount to a usurpation by this Court of the power of
the act is reprobated by her appointment, which is the exclusive prerogative of the Chief Executive (Article
VII, Section 16, 1987 Constitution). It would violate the system of separation of
The petitioner's designation as the permanent representative of the Philippine powers which inheres in our democratic republican form of government.
Government to the United Nations and other International Organizations in
Geneva (Annex B, p. 34, Rollo), was one based on the special trust and The recall order issued by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Assignment Order
confidence which the appointing power, the President, had in the appointee. No. 58/88) was a valid exercise of his authority as an alter ego of the President
Once that trust and confidence ceased to exist, the incumbent's continuance in (Villena vs. Secretary of Interior, 67 Phil. 451). His acts, "performed and
the position became untenable. promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or
reprobated by the Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the latter (Cruz,
The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of Political Law, p. 188, 1987 Edition). His order recalling the petitioner to the
confidence, because their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them home office, having been affirmed by the President, any doubts as to its validity
endures (Corpus vs. Cuaderno, 13 SCRA 591). When that confidence is lost and and propriety have thereby been laid to rest.
the officer holding the position is separated from the service, such cessation is
AO FINDING PETITIONER GUILTY IS SET ASIDE.
Isabelo GARCIANO v Wilfredo OYAO a big family, he cannot pay the complainant in lump sum of the
remaining balance of P300.00; and that he is very willing to pay the
Jan 27, 1981 | Makasiar, J. complainant in installments of P50.00 a month."

The complainant alleges that: ISSUE

"(1) sometime in February of 1968, the respondent borrowed money from him WON Oyao’s act in wilfully refusing to settle his obligation is a violation of the
in the sum of P568.00 for which he signed a promissory note with special power Civil Service Rules and Regulations which would subject him to punishment. –
of attorney authorizing respondent to collect his first quincena salary until his YES
indebtedness is fully paid but, instead, the respondent collected in advance his
salary checks so complainant was unable to collect a single check by way of The explanation of respondent is not satisfactory considering that for over 12
payment of the indebtedness; years from February, 1968 until this date, respondent has not fully paid his
(2) that respondent employed all sorts of tactics and manipulations to evade indebtedness in the original amount of P568.00 despite his various promises to
payment of his obligations but due to the persistent demands of the pay the same on installment basis at the rate of P50.00 a month, lie has still an
complainant the sum of P268 was paid leaving a balance of P300.00; unpaid balance of P300.00 on the principal since July, 1973.
(3) that on July 26, 1973, the respondent executed a promissory note promising
to pay his obligation within that month of July or August; Respondent's willful failure to pay just debt for twelve (12) years since 1968, is
(4) that after his attention was called by Judge Andres Sabido of Branch X, CFI of unbecoming of a public official, to put it mildly (Flores vs. Tatad, Adm. Case No.
Cebu regarding his unpaid obligation to him, the respondent signed another P-1808, March 31, 1980) and is a ground for disciplinary action against him,
promissory note on August 31, 1973 promising to pay his obligation on or including suspension or dismissal from the service (Sec. 19, Rule XVI I I of the
before September 15, 1973, but until now the respondent has not complied with Civil Service Rules in relation to Sec. 33, R.A. No. 2260; Sec. 36, Art. IX, P.D. No.
his promises to settle his indebtedness to him; and 807 of October 6, 1975),
(5) that respondent's act in wilfully refusing to settle his obligation is a violation
of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations which would subject him to His alleged "obvious financial set-back"—about which no proof was
punishment." submitted—cannot justify the unnecessary inconvenience he caused to the
complainant. The indebtedness was incurred as early as February, 1968.
The respondent admits that "he is indebted to complainant in the original Respondent executed a promissory note in favor of the complainant and also a
amount of P300.00 plus interest so that all in all it reaches the amount of special power of attorney authorizing herein complainant to collect
P560.00 respondent's first quincena salary until the indebtedness was fully paid. But
 that he already paid the complainant the amount of P260.00 complainant could not collect the first 15-day salary of respondent, for the latter
representing the interest of the principal capital of the original amount always collected it ahead of complainant. Respondent's execution of the
of P300.00; aforesaid documents in favor of the complainant induced the latter to grant the
 Last July 26, 1973, the complainant demanded from him the remaining said loan. Hence, it is clearly unfair to the complainant as well as unethical for
balance of P300.00 and so he proposed to him to pay said balance at herein respondent to welch on his promise.
P50.00 per month but the complainant got angry so he signed a
promissory note; then on August 31, 1973, he again came to their office Moreover, in his explanation dated January 4, 1974, respondent falsely averred
and demanded again from him the remaining balance but again he that, being the sole bread winner of a "big family" he cannot pay with his
prayed of him to please give him an ample time to look for the amount monthly salary of P273.00 herein complainant lsabelo Garciano in a lump sum
with the request again to pay him in installments to which proposal he the remaining balance of P300.00 (Respondent's Explanation, par. 6). This claim
did not agree, so he again signed a promissory note; that he is only is belied by his Personnel File No. 201, which discloses that respondent has only
receiving a monthly pay of P273.00 and being the sole bread-winner of one daughter, Rhodora T. Oyao born on August 19, 1961 and since January 1,
1975—seven years after he incurred the indebtedness—he has been receiving a and accurate court record and its consequent effect on the faith and trust of the
monthly salary of P435.16 (Personnel File No. 201, p. 13). litigants in our courts of justice, this Court held:

Respondent's unstable financial position is due to his habitual absenteeism— In the administration of justice. litigants repose their faith and trust in the
several leaves of absence without pay—as revealed his personnel File No. 201. authenticity and correctness of court records, and it is the bounden duty of
officials and employees of the court to maintain and uphold that confidence
Moreover, while it is meet and just for an individual to incur an indebtedness of the public. Any act which tends to undermine and corrode the public trust
uncurtailed by the fact that he is a public officer or employee, caution should be is a wrongdoing which warrants administrative sanctions the severity of
taken to prevent the development of suspicious circumstances that might which should be commensurate with the gravity of the act committed.
inevitably impair the image of the public office. We need not exaggerate the
importance of being absolutely free from any, suspicion which may We cannot over-emphasize the importance of a faithful and accurate entry of
unnecessarily erode the faith and confidence of the people in their government. the time and date of receipt of pleadings filed in court. Where there is no
As the Constitution categorically declared: "Public office is a public trust. public mechanical device available to make the tampering of dates impossible,
officers and employees shall served with the highest degree of responsibility, safeguards are taken to ensure the correct recording of the time and date when
integrity, loyalty and efficiency, and shall remain accountable to the people" pleadings are received. One such safeguard is the keeping of an entry book. Here
(Art. XIII, Sec. 1, Constitution). there was such an en try book, but the filing of the answer of the defendants at
4:00 PM on December 19, 1973, was not registered thereon on said date or any
A ground for apprehension is the possibility that cases might arise involving date thereafter, thus giving rise to the fears of complainant, which We hold to be
parties who are creditors of the respondent, then Docket Clerk, now Clerk of a justified, that said answer was surreptitiously received by respondent after the
Court of First Instance of Cebu-a public employee. This is certainly not a remote period given by the trial court to the defendant to file their answer had expired,
possibility. lt is well to stress here that at the time respondent incurred the especially since, the original of said answer did not bear any proof of receipt of a
above-said indebtedness he was discharging the duties of a docket clerk, in copy thereof by complainant's counsel as of the date, December 19, 1973. ...
charge of the custody and maintenance of up-to-date entries in: docket books on
all cases, record book of judgment, record book on archived cases, record book Respondent Wilfredo Oyao, should avoid so far as reasonably possible a
on appealed cases, and the record of the minutes on the raffling of cases. As situation which would normally tend to arouse any reasonable suspicion that he
clerk of court, among his important duties are to receive all pleadings, is utilizing his official position for personal gain or advantage to the prejudice of
documents and communications pertaining to the court, to refer to the deputy party litigants or the public in general. In the language of then Justice, now Chief
clerk of court all cases, pleadings, documents and communications received, to Justice Enrique M. Fernando in the case of Pineda vs. Claudio (28 SCRA 34, 54):
take charge of all mail matters, and to release decisions, orders, processes, "There may be occasion then where the needs of the collectivity that is the
subpoenas and notices as directed. government may collide with his private interest as an individual".

Respondent, it is thus clear, occupies a sensitive position and, if moved by Respondent's improper conduct unavoidably stains the image of the judiciary.
sinister or ulterior motives, he could unduly impair the administration of Court personnel must comply with just contractual obligation, act fairly and
justice. By simply failing to act or by tampering with the record books for a adhere to high ethical standards to preserve the court's integrity.
consideration with which to pay his debts, he can unilaterally imperil the
orderly administration of justice. Furthermore, respondent, although an ordinary court employee, should not, like
judges, incur obligations which will in any way interfere, directly or indirectly,
In one case, Bautista vs. Joaquin, Jr. (Adm. Matter No. P- 236, July 29, 1977, 78 with his function as such. He should be scrupulously careful to avoid such action
SCRA 83, 86, 87), this Court penalized the respondent deputy clerk of court for as may reasonably tend to generate the suspicion that his relations with others
irregularity in receiving pleading". In underscoring the importance of a correct
constitute an element in the determination of the course of action that the court
to which he belongs, will. take in a pending case.
... The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with
the dispensation of justice, like the courts below, from the presiding judge to the
lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.
His conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized with propriety and
decorum but above all else must be above suspicion (Jereos, Jr. vs. Reblando, Sr.,
Adm. Matter No. P-141, May 31, 1976, 76 SCRA 126, 131, 132).

To emphasize the warning, Section I of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
(R.A. No. 3019, as amended by R.A. 3047) states: "It is the policy of the
Philippines (Government in line with the principle that a public office is a public
trust, to repress certain acts of public officers, and private persons alike which
constitute graft and corrupt practices or which may lead thereto" (emphasis
supplied).

Although the actuation of the respondent in the present case may not clearly fall
under any of the graft and corrupt practices defined by law, the impropriety of
the same is evidently unquestionable for it may lead to any of those prohibited
acts.

RESPONDENT IS ADMONISHED TO PAY HIS DEBTS WHEN DUE.