EN BANC
ANSBERTO
P.
PAREDES,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
CA-91-3-P
April 14, 2004
-versus-
FRANCISCO
S. PADUA,
CLERK III, COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:
Despite their dismissal
from the service, government employees are entitled to the leave
credits
that they have earned during the period of their employment. As a
matter of fairness and law, they may not be deprived of such
remuneration,
which they have already earned prior to their dismissal. The Case
Before us is a “Petition
for Equal Protection and Due Process”[1]
dated May 29, 2003, filed by Respondent Francisco S. Padua through
counsel.
It seeks the reversal of the forfeiture of his retirement and leave
benefits
for his 34 years of service in the Court of Appeals.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Facts
This administrative
case began on February 19, 1991, when retired Judge Ansberto Paredes
filed
a Complaint against his cousin, Respondent Padua, for having falsified
the former’s signature on a document captioned “Authority to Sell” and
for having obtained money with the use of that document. In its
Decision[2]
promulgated May 17, 1993, the Court dismissed respondent from the
service
and forfeited his retirement benefits, as follows:
“WHEREFORE, Francisco
S. Padua is hereby DISMISSED from the service with prejudice to his
reinstatement
or appointment to any public office including government owned or
controlled
corporations and his retirement benefits, if any, are ordered
forfeited.
Let a copy of this Decision be forwarded to the Court of Appeals and
the
Civil Service Commission.”
Thereafter, to obtain
a reconsideration of his dismissal and of the forfeiture of his
retirement
and leave benefits, respondent filed several pleadings, enumerated
below:
1. Motion for
Reconsideration[3]
dated June 2, 1993, denied in the Resolution of June 20, 1993,[4]
for its failure to raise any substantial argument to warrant the
reversal
of the questioned Decision.cralaw:red
2. Motion to Set
Aside Decision or its Effects and/or to Lift Forfeiture of Retirement
Benefits[5]
dated August 14, 1993, denied for lack of merit in the Resolution of
March
10, 1994.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Motion for
the Lifting of Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits and for Collection of
Vacation and Sick or Leave Benefits[7]
dated November 26, 1994, denied in the Resolution of December 8, 1994.[8]
4. Plea for Judicial
Clemency and Compassion[9]
dated March 10, 1998, denied for lack of merit in the Resolution of
April
28, 1998.[10]
5. Motion for
Reconsideration[11]
dated June 17, 1998 of the Resolution of April 28, 1998, denied with
finality
in the Resolution of August 18, 1998,[12]
for failure of respondent to present any substantial argument.cralaw:red
6. Motion for
Reconsideration[13]
dated October 6, 1998, treated by the Court as a Second Motion for
Reconsideration
and denied for lack of merit in the Resolution of November 10, 1998.[14]
7. Manifestation
(for Judicial Clemency and Compassion)[15]
dated June 29, 1999, referred by the Court to the Office of the Court
Administrator
(OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation;[16]
recommended for denial by then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo
in his Memorandum[17]
of August 16, 1999; and the recommended denial approved by the Court in
its September 14, 1999 Resolution.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
8. Letter dated
September 15, 1999, asking for pardon, denied for lack of merit in the
Court’s October 5, 1999 Resolution.[19]
9. Plea for Judicial
Clemency and Compassion[20]
dated April 10, 2000, denied for lack of merit in the Court’s
Resolution
of June 27, 2000.[21]
10. Motion for Reconsideration[22]
of the June 27, 2000 Resolution, denied with finality in the January
23,
2001 Resolution,[23]
for lack of substantial argument.cralaw:red
11. Renewed Plea
for Judicial Clemency and Compassion[24]
dated March 18, 2002, denied for lack of merit in the Court’s April 16,
2002 Resolution.[25]
12. Motion to Submit
Additional Evidence in Support of “Renewed Plea for Judicial
Clemency
and Compassion”[26]
dated April 4, 2002, denied on April 23, 2002.[27]
13. Motion for Reconsideration[28]
(dated May 30, 2002) of the April 16, 2002 Resolution, denied[29]
for lack of merit.cralaw:red
14. Motion for Reconsideration
-- A Plea for Mercy[30]
dated December 17, 2002 -- denied[31]
inasmuch as reconsideration had been denied with finality since the
January
23, 2001 Resolution.cralaw:red
On May 29, 2003, respondent
filed the present Petition for Equal Protection and Due Process,[32]
invoking Decisions that were allegedly applicable to his case, although
they were rendered long after his case had attained finality.cralaw:red
On July 8, 2003, the
Court referred the Petition to the OCA for evaluation, report and
recommendation.[33]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Report and
Recommendation
of the OCA
In his Memorandum[36]
dated September 3, 2003, Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco Jr.
observed that twelve and one-half (12 ½) years had passed since
the filing of the Complaint, and ten (10) years since the finality of
respondent’s
dismissal from the service. Throughout this period, the Supreme
Court
has remained steadfast in its resolve to deny the numerous Motions,
Pleas,
Manifestations and Petitions of respondent requesting modification or
amendment
of its adverse judgment. Indeed, the Court has consistently
thrown
its full weight and authority on erring court personnel who have
flagrantly
violated the norms of judicial conduct, and who have thus tainted the
noble
and venerable image of the judiciary.cralaw:red
The Court, however,
has modified and even reduced the penalties already imposed on some
offenders,
owing to some intervening factors or circumstances that merited the
mitigation
of their sentences.cralaw:red
In the present case,
respondent served the judiciary for thirty-four years, during which he
committed only a single offense. In view thereof, the OCA has
recommended
a reduction of the penalties to the extent that his retirement and
leave
benefits would be restored to him.
The Court’s Ruling
As regards the leave
benefits, we concur with the court administrator.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Administrative
Liability
In his Petition, respondent
demonstrates his sincere repentance and deep remorse for the wrong he
committed
in a moment of fallibility, to which every human being is subject.
Realizing
that judicial personnel must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and
integrity
in order to preserve the good name and standing of the courts, he is no
longer questioning the wisdom of this Court in imposing upon him the
disciplinary
action he really deserves.cralaw:red
The dismissal of respondent
has exposed him to the attendant humiliation and tremendous suffering
and
virtually stripped him of his dignity and livelihood. Further,
his
destitution is aggravated by the bad state of his health, considering
that
he is already in the twilight of his life.cralaw:red
Again, he pleads for
clemency, this time for his minor children who have no source of
support
other than his leave and retirement benefits. Being also sickly
and
aging, he is in dire straits indeed. His present situation
compels
the Court to take a second look at the penalties imposed upon him.cralaw:red
In Fojas Jr. v. Rollan,[35]
the respondent clerk of court was dismissed from the service for
dishonesty,
for which all retirement benefits except leave credits were
forfeited.
The same principle was followed in Villaros v. Orpiano.[36]
The Court noted therein that the forfeiture of leave credits was not
imposed
by Section 58 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service, which states:
“Section 58.
Administrative Disabilities Inherent in Certain Penalties –
a.
The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it that of cancellation of
eligibility,
forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualifications
for reemployment in the government service, unless otherwise provided
in
the decision.”[37]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, Civil Service
Commission Memorandum Circular No. 41 -- Series of 1998 as amended by
MC
No. 14, Series of 1999 --provides thus:
“Section 37. Payment
of terminal leave.- Any official/employee of the government who
retires,
voluntarily resigns, or is separated from the service and who is not
otherwise
covered by special law, shall be entitled to the commutation of his
leave
credits exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays without limitation
and regardless of the period when the credits were earned.”chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
“Section 65. Effect
of decision in administrative case. – An official or employee who has
been
penalized with dismissal from the service is likewise not barred from
entitlement
to his terminal leave benefits.”
In the interest of justice
and in consideration of the present plight of respondent, the
application
of the aforementioned cases and of the amended Civil Service Rules is
in
order. He should be granted the leave credits that he earned
during
the period of his government service.[38]
We allow him to claim such credits in order to provide him and his
family
a lifeline and possibly to keep him from again succumbing to the dark
temptations
sometimes caused by financial woes.[39]
WHEREFORE, the Petition
is PARTLY GRANTED. The accrued leave benefits of respondent are
restored.
The Fiscal Management and Budget Office is ordered to compute and
immediately
release those benefits to him.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 191-195.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Paredes v. Padua, 222 SCRA 81, May 17, 1993.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 23-30.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., p. 31.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., pp. 40-47.
[6]
Id., p. 53.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., pp. 54-56.
[8]
Id., p. 60.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., pp. 61-65.
[10]
Id., p. 68.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id., pp. 76-78.
[12]
Id., p. 112.
[13]
Id., pp. 113-117.
[14]
Id., p. 118.
[15]
Id., pp. 119-122.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
See Resolution of July 20, 1999; rollo, p. 133.
[17]
Rollo, pp. 135-137.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id., p. 138.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id., p. 139.
[20]
Id., pp. 140-143.
[21]
Id., p. 146.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Id., pp. 147-150
[23]
Id., p. 151.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Id., pp. 152-155.
[25]
Id., p. 158.
[26]
Id., pp. 159-160.
[27]
Id., p. 162.
[28]
Id., pp. 163-168.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
See Resolution dated July 9, 2002; rollo, p. 169.
[30]
Rollo, pp. 170-175.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
See Resolution dated January 21, 2003; rollo, p. 180.
[32]
Rollo, pp. 191-195.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
Id., p. 197.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Id., pp. 198-206.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
AM No. P-00-1384, February 27, 2002, p. 27.
[36]
AM No. P-02-1548, October 1, 2003, p. 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Magno, 367 SCRA 312, 320, October
17, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
Sabitsana Jr. v. Villamor, 206 SCRA 1, 8, February 7, 1992; Vistan v.
Nicolas,
204 SCRA 370, 371, December 2, 1991; Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v.
Romillo
Jr., 143 SCRA 396, August 12, 1986.
[39]
Marasigan v. Buena, 284 SCRA 1, 12, January 5, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |