### Facts:
The case began with a memorandum report by the Office of the Court Administrator on August 16, 1994, charging Judge Augusto Sumilang, Interpreter Felicidad Malla, Stenographer Edelita Lagmay, and Stenographer Nieva Mercado of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pila, Laguna with the misappropriation of funds. The Supreme Court treated this memorandum as an administrative complaint, docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-94-989. A subsequent complaint against Malla for removing court records was integrated into this case.
During Malla’s tenure as officer-in-charge, an on-the-spot audit uncovered several anomalies, including the diversion of a P240,000 manager’s check, which was intended as a deposit in Civil Case No. 858. Instead of depositing the check as mandated, Malla admitted to lending portions of the funds to coworkers Lagmay and Mercado, as well as utilizing some for personal expenses. Malla’s subsequent admissions, both in an affidavit and testimony, alongside the denial of involvement by Lagmay, Mercado, and Mrs. Sumilang, formed the basis of the administrative complaint.
### Issues:
1. Whether Judge Sumilang exhibited gross negligence in managing his court.
2. Whether Felicidad Malla misappropriated funds and was guilty of infidelity in the custody of court records.
3. Whether Edelita Lagmay and Nieva Mercado engaged in conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
### Court’s Decision:
1. **Judge Sumilang**: Found guilty of gross negligence for lack of supervision over his court staff, fined P20,000.
2. **Felicia Malla**: Found guilty of misappropriating funds and infidelity in custody of court records; hence, her retirement benefits and accrued leave credits were forfeited, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government.
3. **Edelita Lagmay and Nieva Mercado**: Found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and fined P3,000 each, with a stern warning for the future.
### Doctrine:
– Public officers must at all times serve with the utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. Misconduct or failure to adhere to these standards can result in sanctions, including fines and forfeiture of benefits.
– In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence (such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion) is required to establish guilt.
### Class Notes:
– **Elements of Gross Negligence**: (1) Lack of supervision; (2) Failure to act expeditiously on matters within jurisdiction.
– **Misappropriation of Funds**: Using funds entrusted for specific purposes for personal use constitutes misappropriation.
– **Infidelity in Custody of Court Records**: Unauthorized removal or mishandling of court records is punishable.
– **Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service**: Actions by court employees which cast doubt on their integrity and affect public confidence in the judiciary.
### Historical Background:
The case exemplifies the Supreme Court’s role in maintaining the integrity and discipline of judicial officers and court employees in the Philippines. It underscores the expectation of the highest ethical standards from individuals involved in the administration of justice, reflecting the broader constitutional principle that public office is a public trust, requiring accountability, integrity, and efficiency.
Leave a Reply