EN
BANC
JUDGE
BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA,
Complainant,
A.M. No. P-97-1245
[OCA-IPI-96-93-P]
July 7, 1997
-versus-
COURT
AIDE NOEL NAVARETTE,
RTC, Branch 9, Cebu City,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
A letter
complaint was filed with the Office
of the Court Administrator against Court Aide Noel Navarette of Branch
9 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu by the Presiding Judge, Benigno
G.
Gaviola, for theft of monetary exhibits. According to Judge Gaviola, on
December 29, 1995, money exhibits of two [2] Criminal cases [CBU-29515
and CBU-37905] were discovered missing. The matter was reported to the
Civil Security Division of the Cebu Provincial Capitol and the Theft
and
Robbery Section of Police Precinct No. 1, Cebu City.
The theft was
apparently perpetrated by an employee
of the court since there was no sign of forcible entry on office doors,
windows and cabinets. Hence, all the staff of RTC, Branch 9 were
investigated
and fingerprinted. Court Aide Noel Navarette was further investigated
by
the police authorities. On the evening of the same day, respondent
Navarette
allegedly went to the house of Judge Gaviola and admitted having taken
the money exhibits. He reportedly asked for forgiveness and promised to
replace the money which he had taken.cralaw:red
On January 4,
1996 at about 2:30 p.m., respondent
allegedly called up the Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 9, Jocelyn Po,
from
Bais City through long distance and asked for forgiveness, saying that
he would look for money to pay back what he had taken.cralaw:red
A photocopy of an
Acknowledgment/Undertaking
allegedly executed by Mr. Navarette was presented wherein he admitted
taking
money exhibits amounting to P41,800 which he signed in the presence of
the investigating officers.[1]
In an accompanying letter, Hon. Priscila S. Agana, Executive Judge,
Cebu
City, recommended the immediate termination of Mr. Navarette and the
filing
of appropriate charges against him.[2]
On June 17, 1996,
the Court resolved, as recommended
by the Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo Abesamis, to [a] require
respondent
Navarette to comment on the letter complaint of Judge Gaviola; [b]
suspend
the respondent from office pending the final resolution or the case;
[c]
direct the Finance department of the court to withhold the salary of
the
respondent effective immediately. The copy of the resolution of June
17,
1996 together with the copy of the administrative complaint addressed
to
the respondent at RTC, Branch 9, Cebu City, however, were returned to
this
Court unserved with notations "no longer connected with Branch 9" and
"2nd
address insufficient."
Meanwhile, the
Clerk of Court, Atty. Po informed
the Administrative Services of the Court through a letter dated June
13,
1996, that respondent Navarette has been "Absent Without Official
Leave"
[AWOL] since January 2, 1996.[3]
Atty. Po further submitted a copy of the resolution of the Office of
the
Ombudsman [Visayas] dated March 26, 1996, recommending the filing of
criminal
charges for qualified theft against the respondent.[4]
The letter was noted by the court in its resolution dated August 14,
1996.cralaw:red
A public servant
must exhibit at all times the
highest sense of honesty and integrity. No less than the Constitution
sanctifies
the principle that a public office is a public trust, and enjoins all
public
officers and employees to serve with the highest degree of
responsibility,
integrity, loyalty and efficiency.[5]
Public officials and employees are under obligation to perform the
duties
of their office honestly, faithfully and to the best of their ability.[6]
Inasmuch as the
respondent has been absent without
official leave since January 2, 1996 up to the present, the Court
hereby
resolves to drop respondent Noel Navarette, Court Aide, RTC Branch 9,
Cebu
City from the rolls effective January 2, 1996 pursuant to Sec 35, Rule
XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Civil Service which reads as follows:
Sec. 35. Officers and employees who
are
absent
for at least thirty (30) days without approved leave are considered on
Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) and shall be dropped from service
after due notice. However, when the exigencies of the service require
his
immediate presence and he fails/refuses to return to the service, the
head
of the Office may drop him from the service even prior to the
expiration
of the thirty day period abovestated.
WHEREFORE,
Court Aide Noel Navarette is hereby DROPPED
from the service.
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Padilla, Regalado, Davide,
Jr., Romero, Melo, Vitug, Mendoza and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Francisco, J., took no part.
Bellosillo, Puno, Kapunan, Hermosisima, Jr.
and
Torres, Jr., JJ., are on leave.cralaw:red
________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, p. 8.
[2]
Rollo, p. 13.
[3]
Rollo, p. 45.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 46-48.
[5]Sec. 1, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution.
[6]
Policarpio v. Fortus, 248 SCRA 272.
|