SECOND DIVISION
ELSIE U. MAMACLAY,
Petitioner,
A.M.
No.
P-02-1607
March 17, 2003
-versus-
JOEL FRANCISCO,
PROCESS SERVER,RTC-OCC,
CABANATUAN
CITY,
Respondent.
R E S O L U
T I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Complainant Elsa U. Mamaclay
filed a sworn letter-complaint dated April 6, 2000, charging Joel
Francisco,
a process server of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional
Trial
Court of Cabanatuan City, with deceitful and fraudulent acts in
violation
of the Civil Service Law. Complainant claims that respondent
issued
postdated check no. 1062219 in the amount of P30,000.00 knowing fully
well
that at the time of its issuance, he had no funds in the bank, and
respondent
continuously failed and refused to deposit funds or redeem the check.[1]
Respondent filed his
Comment, admitting that he borrowed from complainant P30,000.00 at 5
percent
monthly interest to finance his balut dealership, and as guarantee, he
issued an undated check.[2]
His business, however, suffered a loss and he was unable to settle his
obligation with complainant. Complainant then filed a criminal
case
against him for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in May 1999.
Thereafter, complainant agreed to have his obligation paid in
installments
and he was able to make a partial payment in the amount of P10,000.00.[3]
On August 2, 2000, complainant filed an Affidavit of Desistance,
requesting
for the dismissal of the administrative case against respondent.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) opined that (1) complainant's desistance does not
divest
the Court of its jurisdiction nor strip it of its power to determine
the
veracity of the charges, (2) complainant should be warned not to use
the
Court as a collection agency, and (3) respondent committed an act
unbecoming
a government employee when he issued a post-dated which was dishonored
upon presentment for lack of funds.[5]
The OCA recommended that respondent be fined in the amount of P3,000.00
for conduct unbecoming a government employee with warning that
repetition
of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.[6]
We fully agree with
the findings and recommendations of the OCA but we modify its
recommendation
as to the penalty.cralaw:red
The Court has the duty
to root out misconduct among its employees, regardless of the parties'
desistance.[7]
Administrative proceedings do not depend on the whims and caprices of
the
concerned employees for the aggrieved party is the court system.
The issue is administrative cases is not whether the complainant has a
cause of action against the respondent, but whether the employees have
breached the norms and standards of the judiciary.[8]
Government officials
and employees, especially those employed in the Judiciary, are bound by
the highest standards of propriety and decorum to maintain the people's
respect and faith in the Judiciary.[9]
They are expected to be models of uprightness, fairness and honesty not
only in all official conduct but also in personal actuations, including
business and commercial transactions, and avoid any act or conduct that
would be a bane to, and an emasculation of, the public trust and
confidence
reposed on the Judiciary.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the present case,
respondent admitted that he was unable to pay his debt to
complainant.
He also does not refute complainant's allegation that he issued a check
without sufficient funds therefor. Respondent's issuance of a
bouncing
check constitutes misconduct which is a ground for disciplinary action.[11]
The conduct of every personnel connected with the courts should at all
times be circumspect to preserve the integrity and dignity of the
courts
of justice.[12]
WHEREFORE, respondent
Joel Francisco, Process Server of the Office of the Clerk of Court of
the
Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City is hereby found GUILTY of
MISCONDUCT
and is accordingly FINED the amount of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00)
which he should pay withing sixty (60) days from date of notice of
herein
Resolution with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts
in
the future will be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let a copy of this Resolution
be attached to the 201 Files of respondent Joel Francisco.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Mendoza, Quisumbing and Callejo, Sr., JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 1.
[2]
Id., p. 14.
[3]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., p. 19.
[5]
Id., p. 20.
[6]
Id., p. 21.
[7]
Dionisio v. Gilera, A.M. No. P-99-1330, August 12, 1990, 312 SCRA 287,
295.
[8]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Re: Disciplinary Action against Antonio Lamano, Jr., of the
Judgment
Division, Supreme Court, A.M. No. 99-10-10-SC, November 29, 1999, 319
SCRA
350, 352.
[10]
Manalo v. Hon. Demaala, Adm. Matter No. 1906-MJ, 191 Phil. 640, 645
(1981).
[11]
Abergas v. Bagolbagol, 330 Phil. 74, 77-78 (1996).
[12]
Gaña v. Santos, 234 SCRA 17 (1994). |
