EN
BANC
NARITA
RABE,
Complainant,
A. M. No. P-97-1247
[Formerly A. M. OCA I.P.I.[1]
No. 95-71-P]
May 14, 1997
-versus-
DELSA
M. FLORES,Interpreter III, RTC,
Branch IV, Panabo,Davao,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
In an
administrative complaint for "Conduct Unbecoming
a Government Employee, Acts Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service
and Abuse of Authority" dated August 18, 1995, complainant, Narita Rabe,[2]
by counsel, charged Respondent Delsa M. Flores, Interpreter III at the
Regional Trial Court, Branch IV, Panabo, Davao, as follows:[3]
[Mrs.] Flores took advantage of her
position
as a court employee by claiming a stall at the extension of the Public (sic)
Market when she is (sic) not a member of our
client's
association and was never a party to Civil Case No. 89-23. She herself
knows (sic) that the stalls in the said area had already been
awarded
to our client's members pursuant to the decision of the court on
October
30, 1991. Worse, she took the law into her hands when she destroyed the
stall of our client and brought the materials to the police station of
Panabo, Davao.
After
respondent filed her answer, the Court issued
a Resolution dated January 17, 1996, absolving her of the charge. In
the
same resolution, however, the Court required respondent to explain why
she should no be administratively dealt with for the following:[4]
(a) why she obtained a certification
dated June
18, 1991 issued by Atty. Victor R. Ginete, Clerk of Court, same court,
that she started performing her duties as [an] interpreter on May 16,
1991
when (1) according to a certification dated June 17, 1991 issued by
Mr.
Jose B. Avenido, Municipal Treasurer, Panabo Davao, she was employed in
the office of the Municipal Assessor as Assessment Clerk I since
February
1, 1990 to June 3, 1991 with her last salary being paid by said office
on June 3, 1991; and (2) she took her oath of office before Judge
Mariano
C. Tupas only on June 17, 1991;
(b) why she did not report said business
interest
in her sworn statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, Disclosure
of Business Interests and Financial Connections, and Identification of
Relatives in the Government Service for the years 1991, 1992, 1993, and
1994;
(c) why she has not divested herself of
her
interest
in said business within sixty [60] days from her assumption into (sic)
office; and
(d) why she has indicated in her DTR's
for
August
1995 that she worked on August 15-18, 21, 23-25 and 28-31 and fore
September,
1995 that she worked for all its twenty one [21] working days when her
Contract of Lease with the Municipal Government of Panabo for the
market
stall in its Section 7 clearly states that she has to personally
conduct
her business and be present at the stall otherwise the same would be
canceled
as per its Section 13.
Respondent
Flores, in a letter dated February 13,
1996, explains that as stated in the certification of Atty. Ginete, she
assumed her job in the Regional Trial Court, Branch IV, Panabo, Davao
on
May 16, 1991, in compliance with the directive from this Court for her
to start working on the said date. Respondent further states that "even
prior to said date [May 16, 1991]" she already reported to the court in
order to familiarize herself with the scope of her duties.[5]
Respondent Flores
also admits that she had received
from the municipality a salary for the period May 16 1991 May 31,
1991, notwithstanding her transfer to the judiciary on May 16, 1991.
She
submits, however, the following justification:[6]
I admit that I received my last salary in
the
amount of One Thousand and 80/100 [P1,000.80] Pesos from the Local
Government
Unit from May 16-31, 1991 but farthest from my mind is the intent to
defraud
the government. It was my desire all the time to refund the amount the
moment my salary is received from the Supreme Court, unfortunately more
often than not [the salary] is received three or four months after
assumption
of office.
As we all know the month of May and June
is the
time we enroll our children in school thus the money I got that month
from
the Local Government Unit came handy in defraying registration expenses
of my four children. The passage of time coupled with some intervening
events, made me oblivious of my obligation to refund the money.
However,
when my attention was called on the day I received the copy of the
resolution,
I took no time in refunding the same.
Respondent
alleges that the certification of Municipal
Treasurer Jose V. Avenido is inaccurate because it was on January 25,
1990
that she was appointed as Assessment Clerk I.[7]
According to respondent, she took her oath on June 17, 1991, simply
because
it was on that date that she received a copy of her oath form.[8]
Respondent avers
that she did not divulge any
business interest in her Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities and
Financial Disclosure for the years 1991-1994 because she "was never
engaged
in business during said period although I had a stall in the market."[9]
Respondent
further avers that her Daily Time Record
indicated that she held office on August 15, 18, 21, 23 to 25, 28 and
31
and all the working days of September, 1995 "because in truth and in
fact.[she] did hold office on those days." This was because her
contract
of lease with the Municipal Government of Panabo was never implemented
as it became the subject of "Civil Case No. 95-53 Panabo Public
Market
Vendors Assn. Inc. and Pag-ibig Ng Gulayan Ass. Inc. Vs. Municipality
of
Panabo, et. al., for Declaration of Nullity of Mun. Ord. No. XLV,
Series
of 1994."[10]
The Court
referred the matter to the Office of
the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation. In
its
report, the OCA found respondent guilty of dishonesty and failure to
report
her business interest, and recommended that the penalty of dismissal be
imposed on her. The Court finds that the report and recommendation of
the
OCA is in accord with the evidence and the law. We hold the explanation
of respondent unsatisfactory. Respondent's misconduct is evident from
the
records.cralaw:red
By her own
admission, respondent had collected
her salary from the Municipality of Panabo for the period of May 16-31,
1991, when she was already working at the RTC. She knew that she was no
longer entitled to a salary from the municipal government, but she took
it just the same. She returned the amount only upon receipt of the
Court
Resolution dated January 17, 1996, or more than five [5] years later.
We
cannot countenance the same. Respondent's conduct is plain dishonesty.cralaw:red
Her explanation,
as observed earlier, is unsatisfactory.
Her overriding need for money from the municipal government, aggravated
by the alleged delay in the processing of her initial salary from the
Court,
does not justify receipt of a salary not due her. We sympathize with
respondent's
sad plight of being the sole breadwinner of her family, with her
husband
and parents to feed and children to send to school. This, however, is
not
an acceptable excuse for her misconduct. If poverty and pressing
financial
need could justify stealing, the government would have been bankrupt
long
ago. A public servant should never expect to become wealthy in
government.cralaw:red
But there is
really more to respondent's defense
of poverty. If respondent was just driven by dire pecuniary need,
respondent
should have returned the salary she had obtained from the Municipal
Government
of Panabo as soon as she obtained her salary from the court. However,
she
returned the money only after receipt of the Court's Resolution dated
January
17, 1996, saying that she forgot all about it. Forgetfulness or failure
to remember is never a rational or acceptable explanation.cralaw:red
In Macario Flores
vs. Nonilon Caniya, Deputy Sheriff,
RTC, Imus, Cavite,[11]
this Court ruled that a sheriff who failed to issue an official receipt
for the money entrusted to him for the purpose of satisfying a judgment
debt, "had really wanted to misappropriate the said amount."
Inevitably,
he was dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement
benefits
and accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any
branch
or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or
controlled
corporations.cralaw:red
It is well to
stress once again the constitutional
declaration that a "[p]ublic office is a public trust. Public officers
and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve
them
with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives."[12]
We have repeatedly held that although every
office
in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a
greater
demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual than
in the judiciary. Personnel in the judiciary should conduct themselves
in such a manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion, and free from
any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only in
the
discharge of their official duties but also in their everyday life.
They
are strictly mandated to maintain good moral character at all times and
to observe irreproachable behavior so as not to outrage public decency.[13]
This Court, in
JPDIO vs. Josephine Calaguas, Records
Officer, OCC, MTCC, Angeles City,[14]
held:
The Court must reiterate that a public
office
is a public trust. 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.
Respondent's malfeasance is a clear
contravention
of the constitutional dictum that the State shall "maintain honesty and
integrity in the public service and take positive and effective
measures
against graft and corruption."[15]
Under the
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.
O. No. 292 known as the "Administrative Code of 1987" and other
pertinent
Civil Service Laws, the penalty for dishonesty is dismissal, even for
the
first offense.[16]
Accordingly, for respondent's dishonesty in receiving and keeping what
she was not lawfully entitled to, this Court has the duty to impose on
her the penalty prescribed by law: dismissal.
Apart from the
above finding, We also note the
contradiction between the certification issued by Municipal Treasurer
Jose
Avenido stating that respondent had worked as an assessment clerk in
his
office up to June 3, 1991, and the certification of Clerk of Court
Victor
Ginete stating that respondent started working as an interpreter on May
16, 1991. Although specifically asked by the Court to explain this
contradiction,
respondent could only state that the certification of the treasurer is
inaccurate because she assumed her position as Assessment Clerk on
January
25, 1990 and not on February 1, 1990 as written in the said
certification.
Respondent, however, failed to explain the gravamen of the inquiry, i.e.,
that she was certified to be still connected with the Municipal
Government
of Panabo on June 3, 1991, notwithstanding her assumption of her post
in
the Regional Trial Court as early as May 16, 1991. To the mind of the
Court,
respondent's inability to explain this discrepancy is consistent with
her
failure to satisfactorily explain why she knowingly received and kept a
salary she was not entitled to. Worse, it may be indicative of a
conscious
design to hold two positions at the same time.cralaw:red
Aside from
dishonesty, however, respondent is
also guilty of failure to perform her legal obligation to disclose her
business interests. Respondent herself admitted that she "had a stall
in
the market." The Office of the Court Administrator also found that she
had been receiving rental payments from one Rodolfo Luay for the use of
the market stall. That respondent had a stall in the market was
undoubtedly
a business interest which should have been reported in her Sworn
Statement
of Assets and Liabilities. Her failure to do so exposes her to
administrative
sanction.cralaw:red
Section 8 of
Republic Act No. 6713 provides that
it is the "obligation" of an employee to submit a sworn statement, as
the
"public has a right to know" the employee's assets, liabilities, net
worth
and financial and business interest. Section 11 of the same law
prescribes
the criminal and administrative penalty for violation of any provision
thereof. Paragraph [b] of Section 11 provides that "[b] Any
violation
hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall sufficient
cause
for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no
criminal
prosecution is instituted against him."
In the present
case, the failure of respondent
to disclose her business interest which she herself admitted is
inexcusable
and is a clear violation of Republic Act No. 6713. The respondent's
claim
that her contract of lease of a market stall was never implemented
because
it became the subject of a civil case, fails to convince us. We agree
with
the finding of the OCA on respondent's guilt for this separate offense.
It is a finding, which further supports its recommendation for
respondent's
dismissal, to wit:[17]
The case
respondent is referring to was filed
in 1995. This can be seen from the number of the case which is 95-93.
Earlier
than the filling of the case, respondent was already collecting
rentals
as early as February 22, 1991 from one Rodolfo Luay who was
operating
a business without the necessary license. Respondent should have,
therefore,
indicated in her "Sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth,
Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections, and
Identification
of Relatives in the Government Service" for the years 1991, 1992, 1993,
1994 and 1995 that she had a market stall in the Public market of
Panabo,
Davao.cralaw:red
She admits that
she never indicated such in her
sworn statements. As this Office had earlier stated in its Memorandum
dated
November 10, 1995 filed in connection with the instant complaint:
Such
non-disclosure is punishable with imprisonment
not exceeding five [5] years, or a fine not exceeding Five Thousand
[P5,000.00]
Pesos, or both. But even if no criminal prosecution is instituted
against
the offender, the offender can be dismissed from the service if the
violation
is proven. Respondent 201 file speaks for itself. Furthermore,
respondent
should have divested herself of her interest in said business within
sixty
[60] days from her assumption into (sic) office. She has not.
The
penalty for non-disclosure of business interests and non-divestment is
the same. [Citations omitted].
In her
explanation, respondent maintains the position
that she has no business interest, implicitly contending that there is
nothing to divulge or divest from. As discussed above, respondent had a
business interest. We do not find her administratively liable, however,
for failure to divest herself of the said interest. The requirement for
public officers, in general, to divest themselves of business interests
upon assumption of a public office is prompted by the need to avoid
conflict
of interests.[18]
In the absence of any showing that a business interest will result in a
conflict of interest, divestment of the same is unnecessary. In the
present
case, it seems a bit far-fetched to imagine that there is a conflict of
interest because an Interpreter III of the Regional Trial Court has a
stall
in the market. A court, generally, is not engaged in the regulation of
public market, nor does it concern itself with the activities thereof.
While respondent may not be compelled to divest herself of her business
interest, she had the legal obligation of divulging it.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, in
conformity with the recommendations
of the Office of the Court Administrator, Interpreter III Delsa M.
Flores
is hereby dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement
benefits and accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment
in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including
government-owned
or controlled corporations.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Padilla, Regalado, Davide,
Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Francisco,
Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.cralaw:red
________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Office of the Court Administrator, Informal Preliminary Inquiry.
[2]
In Complainant Rabe's separate affidavit, she made the following
allegations:
xxx xxx xxx
That on August 14, 1995 at
around
4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Mrs. Delsa Flores, a Court Interpreter
at
the Regional Trial Court of Panabo, Davao, went to the stall I occupied
and while there, she made several defamatory utterances against me in a
very menacing, arrogant and threatening manner and in the visayan
dialect,
as follows: Putang ina mo ka, akoa nin pwesto, wala kay ulaw, wala
kay batasan, mangingilog ug pwesto
That Mrs. Flores attempted to
inflict injury upon me by scratching my face but I was able to evade
and
with the timely intervention of Mr. Espiridion Vivas;
That Mrs. Flores made the
foregoing
remarks and other remarks of the same import for several times in a
very
loud voice while walking to and fro;
That Mrs. Flores challenged
me to a fist fight and destroyed the stall I occupied by removing the
wooden
fence and the GI sheets with the help of her husband; loaded the
materials
on a motor vehicle; and brought them to the police station of Panabo;
That Mrs. Flores committed the
aforementioned acts during office hours and in such conduct unbecoming
a government employee;
xxx
xxx
xxx
[3]
Rollo, p. 2.
[4]
Ibid., p. 25.
[5]
Ibid., p. 38.
[6]
Ibid., p. 39.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
Respondent's explanation, p. 2; Rollo, p. 50.
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
A. M. No. P-95-1133, April 26, 1996.
[12]Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution.
[13]
Legaspi vs. Garrete, 242 SCRA 679, 701, March 27, 1995 citing
Montemayor
vs. Collado, Adm. Matter No. 2519-MJ, September 10, 1981, 107 SCRA 258,
264; Association of Court Employees of Panabo, Davao vs. Tupas, Adm.
Matter
No. RTJ-87-141; July 12, 1989, 175 SCRA 292, 296; Leynes vs. Veloso,
Adm.
Matter No. 689-MJ and Virrey vs. Veloso, Adm. Matter No. 809-MJ, the
two
latter cases promulgated on April 13, 1978, 82 SCRA 352, 328.
[14]
A. M. No. P-95-115, May 15, 1996.
[15]Section 27, Article II, 1987 Constitution.
[16]Section 23 [a], Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V, E. O. No.
292 Known as the "Administrative Code of 1987" and other pertinent
Civil
Service laws.
[17]
Pages 6-7 of the Memorandum of the Court Administrator dated November
27,
1996, on this case.
[18]Section 9 of R. A. 6713 provides: "A public official or employees shall
avoid conflicts of interest at all times. When a conflict of interest
arises,
he shall resign from his position in any private business enterprise
within
thirty [30] days from his assumption of office and or divest himself of
his shareholdings or interest within sixty [60] days from such
assumption." |