ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. P-00-1429.November 22, 2000]
ELMA MANALO et al. vs. RUTH B. FRANCISCO
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 22 2000.
A.M. No. P-00-1 429(Elma Manalo, et. al. vs. Ruth B. Francisco, Court Stenographer III, RTC, Br. 84, Batangas City.)
Before us is a letter dated January 30, 1998 of Judge Paterno V. Patac-an transmitting the Joint Affidavit/Complaint of Elma Manalo, Emmalyn Amboy, Edilberto de Castro and Rolando Quinio charging Ruth B. Francisco with Grave Misconduct and/or Dishonesty.
Complainants aver that sometime in July 1996, each of them received from Land Bank Check from the Supreme Court in the following amount:
1.Elma Manalo�������������������� P 0.60
2.Emmalyn Amboy�������������� P 0.60
3.Edilberto de Castro���������� P 0.24
4.Rolando Quinio���������������� P 0.48
On January 28,
1998, they noticed that the aforesaid checks were missing. Through a telephone
call made by a money lender, complainants found out that respondent took the
checks and made material alterations on the checks of Edilberto de Castro and
Rolando Quinio. The said checks were rediscounted to a certain Estella Uy.
Estella Uy found out later that the first check wasoriginally issued to Rolando Quinio and was altered to bear the
amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P 10,000.00). The date on the check was
changed to January 25, 1998. Similarly, the check issued to Edilberto de Castro
was also altered to bear the amount of Seven Thousand Pesos (P
7,000.00). The date was also changed to January 20, 1998.
When the complainants confronted the respondent, the latter readily admitted her guilt.
It is relevant to note that the Court En Banc, in a Resolution dated September 15, 1998, resolved that respondent Ruth B. Francisco be DROPPED from the service, effective January 2, 1998 in view of the latter's absence without leave (AWOL) which is detrimental to the service.
For the highly deplorable acts of respondent, she deserves no less than the penalty of dismissal. However, in view of the aforecited Resolution of the Court En Banc, the only penalty that could be meted against her is the forfeiture of all benefits and privileges to which she may be entitled with prejudice to re�employment in any government agency and instrumentality including government-owned and controlled corporation.
ACCORDINGLY, respondent is found guilty of Gross Dishonesty and is meted the penalty of forfeiture of all benefits to which she may be entitled with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency and instrumentality including government-owned or controlled corporation.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA MAGAY-DRIS
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH