February 2003 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2003 > February 2003 Decisions >
A.M. No. 2002-6-SC February 5, 2003 - ALEJANDREA GURO, ET AL. v. SUSAN M. DORONIO:
EN BANC
[A.M. No. 2002-6-SC. February 5, 2003.]
ALEJANDREA GURO and ABSAMEN C. DOMOCAO, Complainants, v. SUSAN M. DORONIO, Fiscal Controller I, FMO, Accounting, Division, OCA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
This is an administrative case initiated by a complaint, dated November 5, 2001, against respondent, Susan M. Doronio, by the complainants, Alejandrea L. Guro and Absamen C. Domocao, Stenographer III and Clerk IV, respectively, of the Shari’a District Court, 4th Shari’a Judicial District, Marawi City.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Complainant Guro alleged that sometime in September and October 2001, she applied for a Supreme Court Savings and Loan Association (SCSLA) Multi-Purpose loan and a Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) Salary loan. She was surprised to learn that in September 2001, someone was granted the loans in her name and the funds released to the said impostor. Upon verification, she found out that someone purportedly bearing the name "Alejandrea L. Guro" was given the proceeds of the loan upon the guarantee of respondent, Susan M. Doronio, an employee of the Accounting Office of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and the Liaison Officer of the Supreme Court with the GSIS. Guro was also informed that Myla, a GSIS personnel, became suspicious and refused to release the proceeds of the loan to the impostor, but allegedly, Susan urged her (Myla) to release the check. The impostor likewise received the proceeds of the SCSLA loan illegally using complainant’s name and forged signature.
Respondent Doronio denied complainant’s allegation that she prodded Myla to release the check. She contended that she has been doing liaison work with the GSIS and PAG-IBIG for more than three years and accommodating similarly situated employees without any complaints. Respondent asserted that she guaranteed the loan of the impostor even if a requirement was lacking because the impostor showed a Supreme Court ID, which to her (Doronio) appeared genuine, and thus satisfying herself that said person is an employee of the Court. She also claimed that she is as much a victim as the complainants, and that she did not have any bad intention in guaranteeing the loan of the impostor as "I wouldn’t sacrifice my job just so a person completely unknown to me would be able to defraud other people." 1
Complainants suspect that Mr. Binang S. Jaruni, his two wives and Amilyn M. Casan-Ali, the wife of former Judge Casan-Ali, are the persons behind the syndicate, and in their complaint, pray that the deductions from their salary be immediately stopped and that an investigation be conducted to prevent future similar occurrences.
On January 21, 2002, eleven (11) judges and employees of the Shari’a Circuit Court, Shari’a District Court and Municipal Trial Court in Cities, sent a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, asking that they be included as Joinders to the complaint, alleging that they are similarly situated with the complainants.
The complaint was forwarded to Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer of this Court for appropriate action. 2
In a Memorandum dated April 9, 2002, the Complaints and Investigation Division, Office of Administrative Services of this Court (hereinafter, Investigating Body) submitted the following recommendations:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1) (R)espondent Ms. Susan Doronio be suspended for three (3) months without pay for negligence in the performance of her duty;
2) (T)he OAS, OCA, be directed to devise an effective management control in the processing of loan applications;
3) (M)eanwhile, the FMO, OCA be directed to cease and desist from deducting the GSIS loans and SCSLA loans subject of this complaint from the salaries of Alexandra (sic) Guro and Abesamen C. Damocao (sic), until receipt of the investigation report of the NBI." 3
In the same report, the Investigating Body ratiocinated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"A careful review of the complaint and the comment of Ms. Doronio unearth(s) an irregular practice in the release of the salary/policy loan checks. Respondent Doronio by her own admission showed that she was careless in the performance of her duty as liaison officer. Her act of accommodating check claimants from the GSIS by vouching their identities as employees of the Court although she does not really know them is highly detestable. Such a practice will definitely reward unscrupulous individuals to the prejudice of unsuspecting court employees. It is the Standard Operating Procedure for lower court employees that loaned checks are officially mailed to the employees concerned. The only exception is when the employees themselves personally follow-up their loan applications. It is never the duty of the liaison officer to guarantee their identities. The only duty of the liaison officer is to make sure that the remittances, loan applications and checks are immediately transmitted to the GSIS/OCA Offices concerned but never to individually release them." 4 (Emphasis supplied)
We agree with the findings of the Investigating Body. "A public servant is expected to exhibit, at all times, the highest degree of honesty and integrity and should be made accountable to all those whom he serves." 5
Respondent was negligent in the performance of her duty. She was lax in giving her guarantee for the release of the proceeds of the loan especially since a requirement was lacking. As a liaison officer, she knows the requirements and the procedure for the release and approval of the loan. She could have required further proof of the impostor’s identification. Having failed to do so, she was negligent and deserves the penalty recommended by the Investigating Body. As was aptly explained in the memorandum:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . Ms. Doronio does not know Alexandra (sic) Guro personally and as liaison officer, she should have taken precautionary steps before she vouched for the claimant’s identity to the Releasing Officer. . . . Respondent’s failure to observe the diligence required in the performance of her duties placed not only complainants but the employees of the entire judiciary at the mercy of these scrupulous individuals. Being the Liaison Officer dealing with money claims, she should have always place(d) herself on guard from these individuals." 6
Respondent cannot absolve herself with the contention that she has followed the same practice for over three years without any complaint. The practice is wrong and precisely allowed impostors to misuse the names of the complainants. A wrong, however long perpetrated, can never be right.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
It also appears that complainants, upon the intercession of their superior, Datu Ashary M. Alauya and as per plea of respondent Doronio, filed an Affidavit of Desistance insofar as respondent Doronio is concerned. 7 The desistance is of no moment. We reiterate the rule that an affidavit of desistance does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative case. It has been consistently held by this Court that a complaint for malfeasance or misfeasance against a public servant of whatever rank, cannot be withdrawn at any time for whatever reason by a complainant as this is "anathema to the preservation of the faith and confidence of the citizenry in their government, its agencies and instrumentalities." 8 Administrative proceedings "should not be made to depend on the whims and caprices of complainants who are in a real sense, only witnesses therein." 9
Respondent, as a court employee, is covered by the Civil Service Law. 10 As provided for in Book V of The Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), neglect of duty is a ground for disciplinary action. 11 Simple neglect of duty is considered a less grave offense and is punished with suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. 12
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Susan M. Doronio is suspended for three (3) months for negligence, with a warning that a repetition of the same will merit a greater penalty. The Fiscal Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, is directed to cease and desist from deducting the GSIS and SCSLA loans subject of this complaint from the salaries of Alejandrea L. Guro and Absamen C. Domocao.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J., is on leave.
Complainant Guro alleged that sometime in September and October 2001, she applied for a Supreme Court Savings and Loan Association (SCSLA) Multi-Purpose loan and a Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) Salary loan. She was surprised to learn that in September 2001, someone was granted the loans in her name and the funds released to the said impostor. Upon verification, she found out that someone purportedly bearing the name "Alejandrea L. Guro" was given the proceeds of the loan upon the guarantee of respondent, Susan M. Doronio, an employee of the Accounting Office of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and the Liaison Officer of the Supreme Court with the GSIS. Guro was also informed that Myla, a GSIS personnel, became suspicious and refused to release the proceeds of the loan to the impostor, but allegedly, Susan urged her (Myla) to release the check. The impostor likewise received the proceeds of the SCSLA loan illegally using complainant’s name and forged signature.
Respondent Doronio denied complainant’s allegation that she prodded Myla to release the check. She contended that she has been doing liaison work with the GSIS and PAG-IBIG for more than three years and accommodating similarly situated employees without any complaints. Respondent asserted that she guaranteed the loan of the impostor even if a requirement was lacking because the impostor showed a Supreme Court ID, which to her (Doronio) appeared genuine, and thus satisfying herself that said person is an employee of the Court. She also claimed that she is as much a victim as the complainants, and that she did not have any bad intention in guaranteeing the loan of the impostor as "I wouldn’t sacrifice my job just so a person completely unknown to me would be able to defraud other people." 1
Complainants suspect that Mr. Binang S. Jaruni, his two wives and Amilyn M. Casan-Ali, the wife of former Judge Casan-Ali, are the persons behind the syndicate, and in their complaint, pray that the deductions from their salary be immediately stopped and that an investigation be conducted to prevent future similar occurrences.
On January 21, 2002, eleven (11) judges and employees of the Shari’a Circuit Court, Shari’a District Court and Municipal Trial Court in Cities, sent a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, asking that they be included as Joinders to the complaint, alleging that they are similarly situated with the complainants.
The complaint was forwarded to Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer of this Court for appropriate action. 2
In a Memorandum dated April 9, 2002, the Complaints and Investigation Division, Office of Administrative Services of this Court (hereinafter, Investigating Body) submitted the following recommendations:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1) (R)espondent Ms. Susan Doronio be suspended for three (3) months without pay for negligence in the performance of her duty;
2) (T)he OAS, OCA, be directed to devise an effective management control in the processing of loan applications;
3) (M)eanwhile, the FMO, OCA be directed to cease and desist from deducting the GSIS loans and SCSLA loans subject of this complaint from the salaries of Alexandra (sic) Guro and Abesamen C. Damocao (sic), until receipt of the investigation report of the NBI." 3
In the same report, the Investigating Body ratiocinated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"A careful review of the complaint and the comment of Ms. Doronio unearth(s) an irregular practice in the release of the salary/policy loan checks. Respondent Doronio by her own admission showed that she was careless in the performance of her duty as liaison officer. Her act of accommodating check claimants from the GSIS by vouching their identities as employees of the Court although she does not really know them is highly detestable. Such a practice will definitely reward unscrupulous individuals to the prejudice of unsuspecting court employees. It is the Standard Operating Procedure for lower court employees that loaned checks are officially mailed to the employees concerned. The only exception is when the employees themselves personally follow-up their loan applications. It is never the duty of the liaison officer to guarantee their identities. The only duty of the liaison officer is to make sure that the remittances, loan applications and checks are immediately transmitted to the GSIS/OCA Offices concerned but never to individually release them." 4 (Emphasis supplied)
We agree with the findings of the Investigating Body. "A public servant is expected to exhibit, at all times, the highest degree of honesty and integrity and should be made accountable to all those whom he serves." 5
Respondent was negligent in the performance of her duty. She was lax in giving her guarantee for the release of the proceeds of the loan especially since a requirement was lacking. As a liaison officer, she knows the requirements and the procedure for the release and approval of the loan. She could have required further proof of the impostor’s identification. Having failed to do so, she was negligent and deserves the penalty recommended by the Investigating Body. As was aptly explained in the memorandum:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . Ms. Doronio does not know Alexandra (sic) Guro personally and as liaison officer, she should have taken precautionary steps before she vouched for the claimant’s identity to the Releasing Officer. . . . Respondent’s failure to observe the diligence required in the performance of her duties placed not only complainants but the employees of the entire judiciary at the mercy of these scrupulous individuals. Being the Liaison Officer dealing with money claims, she should have always place(d) herself on guard from these individuals." 6
Respondent cannot absolve herself with the contention that she has followed the same practice for over three years without any complaint. The practice is wrong and precisely allowed impostors to misuse the names of the complainants. A wrong, however long perpetrated, can never be right.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
It also appears that complainants, upon the intercession of their superior, Datu Ashary M. Alauya and as per plea of respondent Doronio, filed an Affidavit of Desistance insofar as respondent Doronio is concerned. 7 The desistance is of no moment. We reiterate the rule that an affidavit of desistance does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative case. It has been consistently held by this Court that a complaint for malfeasance or misfeasance against a public servant of whatever rank, cannot be withdrawn at any time for whatever reason by a complainant as this is "anathema to the preservation of the faith and confidence of the citizenry in their government, its agencies and instrumentalities." 8 Administrative proceedings "should not be made to depend on the whims and caprices of complainants who are in a real sense, only witnesses therein." 9
Respondent, as a court employee, is covered by the Civil Service Law. 10 As provided for in Book V of The Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), neglect of duty is a ground for disciplinary action. 11 Simple neglect of duty is considered a less grave offense and is punished with suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. 12
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Susan M. Doronio is suspended for three (3) months for negligence, with a warning that a repetition of the same will merit a greater penalty. The Fiscal Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, is directed to cease and desist from deducting the GSIS and SCSLA loans subject of this complaint from the salaries of Alejandrea L. Guro and Absamen C. Domocao.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr. and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J., is on leave.
Endnotes:
1. Answer of Respondent Susan M. Doronio, dated December 7, 2001.
2. 1st Indorsement, December 3, 2001.
3. Memorandum for Hon. Hilario G. Davide, Jr. dated 9 April 2002, p. 5.
4. Id., p. 3
5. Office of the Court Administrator v. Ediltrudes A. Besa, A.M. No. P-02-1551 (formerly A.M. No. 01-2-28-MeTC), September 11, 2002, citing Judiciary Planning Development and Implementation Office v. Calaguas, 256 SCRA 690 (1996).
6. Supra note 3, p. 4.
7. Affidavit of Alejandrea L. Guro and Absamen C. Domocao dated August 15, 2002.
8. Esmeralda-Baroy v. Peralta, 287 SCRA 1 (1998).
9. Ibid.; Reyes-Domingo v. Morales, 342 SCRA 6 (2000).
10. Manapat v. Tolentino, A.M. No. P-00-1388 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 98-515-P), June 19, 2002.
11. Section 46 (b) (3), Chapter 6, Title I, Subtitle A (July 25, 1987).
12. Section 23, Rule XIV, Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws (December 27, 1991).
