February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. P-11-3000 : February 07, 2012]
ARTHUR M. GABON v. REBECCA P. MERKA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, LILOAN, SOUTHERN LEYTE
"A.M. No. P-11-3000 (Arthur M. Gabon v. Rebecca P. Merka, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Liloan, Southern Leyte). - In our November 29, 2011 Decision, we found the respondent guilty of grave misconduct (1) for writing eight demand letters in 1993 using the Municipal Trial Court's (MTC's) official letterhead and signing the same letters in her official capacity as the Clerk of Court of the MTC of Liloan, Southern Leyte; (2) for administering oaths in five affidavits, and a Kasabutan (Agreement) in 1995 and 2000 that had no relation with her official duties; and (3) for taking advantage of the franking privilege extended to courts in sending the demand letters. Thus, we dismissed her from the service.
In her motion for reconsideration, the respondent begs for leniency from this Court and presents for our consideration her otherwise good service record in her 32 years of service in the government, 29 years as Clerk of Court of the MTC of Liloan, Southern Leyte.
We find no sound and substantial reason to reconsider our November 29, 2011 Decision.
Grave misconduct is a serious offense punishable with dismissal even for the first offense. Thus, as provided by law, there is no other penalty that is imposable on the respondent than the penalty of dismissal. Moreover, length of service is not a magic word that, once invoked, will automatically be considered as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the party invoking it. While in most cases length of service is considered in favor of the respondent, it is not considered where the offense committed is found to be serious, as in this case. We cannot consider length of service in favor of the respondent because she committed not only one act, but a series of acts. By her flagrant abuse and misuse of authority, the respondent exhibited an obvious lack of integrity expected of a court employee. The respondent failed to meet the strict standards set for a court employee � that all court personnel must conduct themselves in a manner exemplifying integrity, honesty and uprightness; hence, she does not deserve to remain in the Judiciary.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY. No further pleadings shall be entertained. Let entry of judgment be made in due course."
Del Castillo, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Section 52 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.[2] Rimando A. Gannapao v. Civil Service Commission, et al., G.R. No. 180141, May 31, 2011; Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, G.R. No. 155732, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 593, 604.