NELIA RECIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. VICTORIO M. ACUÑA, DEPUTY SHERIFF, VIRGINCITA VILLALOBOS, STAFF ASSISTANT III AND ANA LACADEN, COURT AIDE, RESPONDENTS.

Pursuant to the Resolution of this Court dated October 24, 1990
in A.M. P-90-452, entitled “Nelia Recio vs. Victorio M. Acuña, Deputy Sheriff,
Virgincita Villalobos, Staff Assistant III and Ana Lacaden, Court Aide”,
directing the Office of the Court Administrator to effect the actions it
recommended in its memorandum report, this case was filed by the Office of the
Court Administrator against the above-named respondents for Absence Without
Official Leave (AWOL), Insubordination and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of
the Service.

The records show that on October 13, 1988, respondents Virgincita
Villalobos and Ana B. Lacaden requested Atty. Nelia Recio, Clerk of Court of
MeTC, San Juan, to approve the six (6) months leave application of other
respondent Acuña on the pretext that the latter was seriously ill^[1]
with pulmonary tuberculosis. Said sick
leave application was approved by Atty. Recio who relied upon the Medical
Certificate^[2]
attached thereto.

However, two (2) weeks later, Atty. Recio received reports that
respondent Acuña had left for Saipan, USA, together with respondent Lacaden’s
husband, to work there as a contract worker. These reports were confirmed by the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation (CID) in a letter^[3] dated
November 23, 1988 that indeed, respondent Acuña had left the country on August 18, 1988
for Guam. Further inquiries from the
Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) revealed that respondent Acuña
obtained a one (1)-year employment contract from Nor Mar Enterprises, Hartley
Kroul, DBA Bang Bang
Corporation, Saipan, USA, to work as an Instructor.^[4]

Not only did respondents Villalobos and Lacaden cover up for
respondent Acuña while he was abroad without the permission of his immediate
superior, Clerk of Court Recio and this Court, they also conspired to receive
respondent Acuña’s salary while he was away up to November 1988, this despite
knowledge of the fact that respondent Acuña’s leave credits had been exhausted
as of October 20, 1988.^[5]
Respondent Villalobos, being the Authorized Liaison Officer and is thus in charge of receiving
from this Court the salary checks owing the employees of MeTC, San Juan,
received four (4) checks pertaining to respondent Acuña covering the period
from October 30, 1988 to November 20, 1988.^[6] To be able to encash the same,
other respondent Lacaden forged respondent Acuña’s signature at the back of
said four (4) PNB checks.^[7]

On December 9, 1988, Atty. Recio issued a Memorandum^[8]
to respondent Villalobos to return all the checks that she received for and in
behalf of respondent Acuña or to inform her
of the whereabouts of said checks if the same were no longer in her
possession. Instead of doing as
directed, respondent Villalobos disregarded said order of her immediate
superior, and, with cutting remarks, even questioned the latter’s authority to
issue the same.^[9]

On April 16, 1990, an Investigation, Report and Recommendation^[10]
was made by Executive Judge Milagros A. Caguioa pursuant to the 3rd Indorsement
dated July 6, 1989 of the then Court Administrator Meynardo A. Tiro. Based on the same, his successor, the
Honorable Josue N. Bellosillo, now a member of this Court, filed an
Administrative Complaint on December 19, 1991, recommending the dismissal from
the service of respondent Acuña and that the proper administrative penalties be
meted out to him and other respondents Virgincita Villalobos and Ana B.
Lacaden. Likewise, it was also
recommended that the proper administrative penalties be meted out to Assistant
Prosecutor Severina A. Acuña, who is applying for the position of Metropolitan
Trial Court Judge of Manila.

This Court is now called upon to consider the propriety of the
above recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator.

Respondent Acuña’s act of going abroad without the permission of
this Court is in violation of Memorandum Order No. 26^[11]
which provides that:

x x x                             x x x                             x x x

“Requests for permission to travel abroad from members and
employees of the judiciary shall henceforth be obtained from the Supreme
Court.”

Acuña is likewise guilty of dishonesty for applying for a sick
leave on the pretext that he was seriously ill, in order to conceal his absence
from the country. This is just one of
the several grounds for disciplinary action that he committed under P.D. 807,^[12]
Section 36(b) Article IX, to wit:

“(b) The following shall be grounds for
disciplinary action:

(1) Dishonesty

x x x

(3) Neglect of duty

x x x

(24) Pursuit of
private business, vocation or profession without the permission required by
Civil Service rules and regulations;

x x x

(27) Conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service.”

The above are serious infractions which warrant respondent
Acuña’s dismissal from the service. We
condemn and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of
all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the
norm of public accountability and would diminish or even just tend to diminish
the faith of the people in the Judiciary.^[13]
Respondent Acuña’s acts show beyond doubt his unfitness to continue
to hold any government position. The Judiciary must be purged of unethical
employees, like respondent Acuña, or run the risk of eroding the public’s
confidence in the
System because of the bad example and highly reprehensible conduct shown by her
members.

We likewise condemn the acts of other respondents Villalobos and
Lacaden as these are in violation of the policy of the State to promote a high
standard of ethics in public service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the
people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity,
competence and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives and
uphold public interest over personal interest.^[14]

By covering up for respondent Acuña while he was out of the
country and by receiving his
salary when he was no longer entitled to it, respondents Villalobos and Lacaden
are likewise guilty of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service punishable under P.D. 807.^[15] In
addition, respondent Villalobos is guilty of discourtesy in the course of official duties and insubordination
for failing to heed Clerk of Court Nelia Recio’s directive to return all the
checks that she received for and in behalf of respondent Acuña or to inform her
of the whereabouts of said checks if the same were no longer in her
possession. Said order was lawful and
reasonable and did not deserve the arrogant and cutting answer that Villalobos
lashed out on her superior.^[16]
Respondent Villalobos’ disrespect and attitude of belligerent insubordination towards Recio, as
well as her and respondent Lacaden’s participation in the highly
anomalous transaction may be due to the influence of respondent Acuña’s wife,
Assistant Prosecutor Severina A. Acuña, who was their former superior. Be that as it may, such influence is no justification to show disrespect
to their immediate superior. The acts
of forging the signature of Acuña while receiving his salary check and forging
the indorsements of Acuña in order to cash
the checks were acts punishable as a criminal
offense and should deserve severe penalty.

We are disturbed by they high-handed manner in which Assistant
Prosecutor Severina A. Acuña conducted herself during the investigation of the case. She represented all three respondents in the said investigation
but would refuse to participate in the proceedings when she was asked questions
that will yield answers which were not favorable to her case, and was insistent
in participating when she wanted to protect her own interests and that of her
husband and the other respondents. We
also could not fail but notice her warped and scheming legal mind when a
pattern was woven outlining her participation in the highly anomalous and
reprehensible transaction subject of this
case. If it is proven that she was the one who orchestrated respondent
Acuña’s leaving for abroad without the necessary procedures having been
followed, his application for a sick leave to conceal his absence and
respondents Villalobos and Lacaden’s receiving respondent Acuña’s salary when
he was no longer entitled to it, then, Assistant Prosecutor Acuña’s dismissal
from the service, and suspension from the
practice of law, is in order. We
hereby rule that an investigation be conducted to determine the gravity of
Assistant Prosecutor Severina A. Acuña’s participation in the events leading to
the present case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, We hereby order the
dismissal of Deputy Sheriff Victoria M. Acuña, Virgincita Villalobos and Ana
Lacaden from the service, with prejudice to their being appointed or reinstated
to any other position in government and with forfeiture of any and all benefits
that they may be entitled under the law. Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Department of Justice with
a request that proper inquiry be taken as may be appropriate against Assistant
Prosecutor Severina Aguilar-Acuña in connection with this case.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Melo, Campos, Jr., and Quiason, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., no part.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 127.

^[2]
Ibid., p. 152.

^[3]
Ibid., p. 71.

^[4]
Ibid., p. 142.

^[5]
Ibid., p. 128.

^[6]
Ibid., p. 137.

^[7]
Ibid., p. 136.

^[8]
Ibid., p. 69.

^[9]
Ibid., p. 134.

^[10]
Ibid., p. 178.

^[11]
Entitled “Modifying Executive Order No. 6 Providing Procedures Relative to
Requests of Government Officials and for Authority to Travel Abroad,” July 31,
1986.

^[12]
“Providing for the Organization of the Civil Service Commission in Accordance
with the Provisions of the Constitution, Prescribing Its Powers and Functions
and For Other Purposes,” 71 O.G. No. 47, 7902 (November 24, 1975).

^[13]
Sy vs. Academia, 198 SCRA 705 (1991).

^[14]
R.A. 6173, “An Act Establishing a Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,” February
20, 1989; 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section I.

^[15]
Supra, note 11.

^[16]
Supra, note 8.