EN BANC
ALEJANDREA
GURO
AND ABSAMEN C. DOMOCAO,
Complainants,
A.M.
No.
2002-6-SC
February 5, 2003 - versus -
SUSAN M.
DORONIO,
FISCAL CONTROLLER I, FMO,
ACCOUNTING
DIVISION,
OCA,
Respondent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PUNO,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The complaint was forwarded
to Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief
Administrative
Officer of this Court for appropriate action.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED,
it is respectfully recommended that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1) (R)espondent
Ms. Susan Doronio be suspended for three (3) months without pay for
negligence
in the performance of her duty;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2) (T)he
OAS, OCA, be directed to devise an effective management control in the
processing of loan applications;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the same report,
the Investigating Body ratiocinated:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"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]
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]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x x x 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. x x x 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]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.,
on leave.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Answer of Respondent Susan M. Doronio, dated December 7, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
1st Indorsement, December 3, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Memorandum for Hon. Hilario G. Davide, Jr. dated 9 April 2002, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., p. 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Office of the Court Administrator vs. 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 vs. Calaguas, 256 SCRA
690
(1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Supra note 3, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Affidavit of Alejandrea L. Guro and Absame C. Domocao dated August 15,
2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Esmeralda-Baroy vs. Peralta, 287 SCRA 1 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Ibid.; Reyes-Domingo vs. Morales, 342 SCRA 6 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Manapat vs. Tolentino, A.M. No. P-00-1388 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No.
98-515-P),
June 19, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Section 46 (b) (3), Chapter 6, Title I, Subtitle A (July 25, 1987).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Section 23, Rule XIV, Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order 292
and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws (December 27, 1991).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |