JUDGE FE GALLON-GAYANILO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ERIC C. CALDITO, PROCESS SERVER, BRANCH 35, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ILOILO CITY, ILOILO,, RESPONDENT.

Gallon-Gayanilo versus Caldito

The Case

This is an administrative case in which a sitting judge, Judge Fe Gallon-Gayanilo of Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Iloilo, charges Eric C. Caldito, a process server of the same branch, with dishonesty and gross misconduct for falsifying a court order. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct demanded of every employee of the Judiciary, and because it answers a question that recurs in bar and administrative examinations: can resignation spare a court employee from the consequences of a grave offense? The Supreme Court says no.

Procedural History

The matter began as a letter-complaint filed by Judge Gallon-Gayanilo with the Supreme Court. The Office of the Court Administrator directed Caldito to comment on the complaint. Instead of commenting, Caldito sent a letter informing the Court of his resignation as process server, and the Office of the Court Administrator accepted that resignation effective May 12, 2014, subject to the usual clearance requirements. When Caldito failed to submit his comment, the Office of the Court Administrator sent him a tracer notice reiterating the directive, but he never answered the charges.

The Office of the Court Administrator then submitted its findings and recommendations to the Supreme Court, which exercised its direct administrative supervision over trial court personnel. The Court agreed with the findings and recommendations and decided the case as a regular administrative matter.

Facts

Judge Gallon-Gayanilo received a letter from the Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Tisha Diane A. Alipao, reporting that Caldito had falsified the contents of the court's order dated February 27, 2014 in a cadastral case, a petition for the issuance of an owner's copy of a certificate of title covering a lot in the Cadastral Survey of Cabatuan, Iloilo. The genuine order merely directed the amendment of the petition. It set no hearing and ordered no posting.

Caldito altered the order so that it appeared the petition would be heard on May 22, 2014 and that he must immediately post the notice. He did this by copying the contents of an earlier order issued by the court in a different cadastral case. In truth, the petition was set for hearing not on May 22, 2014 but on June 5, 2015, as stated in the court's April 10, 2014 order. The judge also stressed that it was not her practice to sign machine copies of orders sent to counsel, as Caldito had done, although she signed the carbon copies. The apparent purpose of the falsification was to solicit one thousand pesos from the law firm of Que, Lebrilla and Associates for supposed posting expenses.

When asked by the Branch Clerk of Court to comment on the matter, Caldito showed no remorse. Instead of replying, he went on absence without leave. He then sent his letter of resignation even before he was notified of the directive from the Office of the Court Administrator, and he ignored the subsequent tracer notice. To the end, he made no effort to answer the charges against him.

Issues

• Whether or not Caldito is administratively liable for grave misconduct, falsification, and dishonesty for altering a court order and soliciting money from a law firm with a pending case in court.
• Whether or not Caldito's resignation from the service, already accepted, bars the imposition of the accessory penalties of dismissal.
• Whether or not Caldito's repeated failure to comply with the directives of the Office of the Court Administrator and of the Court constitutes gross misconduct.

Applicable Provisions

The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, Canon Four, Section One, provides:

Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.

This fixes the baseline duty of diligence and exclusive commitment that Caldito violated when he used his office to extract money from a litigant's counsel.

The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, Canon Four, Section Three, provides:

Court personnel shall not alter, falsify, destroy or mutilate any record within their control. This provision does not prohibit amendment, correction or expungement of records or documents pursuant to a court order.

This is the provision Caldito directly breached, since he altered a court order without any authority, and the exception for amendments made pursuant to a court order does not cover him.

Rule 10, Section 52 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations.

This is the basis for imposing the accessory penalties of dismissal even though Caldito had already resigned.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there is grave misconduct when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule are present. Caldito miserably failed to meet the high ethical standards expected of court employees. His act of falsifying a court order to solicit money from the law firm representing a party in the case constituted gross misconduct. He also committed falsification of an official document when he altered the February 27, 2014 order and made it appear that the case was set for hearing on a date when it was not so calendared. That falsification, done to solicit one thousand pesos on the misrepresentation that the amount was needed for posting expenses, constituted gross dishonesty. The Court defined dishonesty as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness.

On the second issue, the Court held that Caldito's resignation would not extricate him from the consequences of his offenses, because the Court has never allowed resignation to be an escape or an easy way out to evade administrative liability or sanction. Citing its earlier ruling in Alcantara-Aquino versus Dela Cruz, where it disregarded the respondent's resignation and still imposed the accessory penalties of dismissal, the Court held that the inculpatory acts were so grave as to call for the most severe administrative penalty. It therefore imposed the accessory penalties of dismissal notwithstanding the accepted resignation.

On the third issue, the Court held that Caldito's failure to submit his comment constituted clear and willful disrespect for the Office of the Court Administrator and for the Court, which exercises direct administrative supervision over trial court officers and employees. Non-compliance with the directives of the Office of the Court Administrator was tantamount to disrespect for the Court's lawful order, and a court employee who deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the directive of the Court is guilty of gross misconduct.

Doctrine

First, there is grave misconduct when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule are present. Second, court personnel shall not alter, falsify, destroy or mutilate any record within their control, and any alteration not made pursuant to a court order is a violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. Third, dishonesty is a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud, and it is a grave offense punishable by dismissal even on the first offense. Fourth, resignation does not moot an administrative case or erase liability, and the accessory penalties of dismissal, namely cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations, may still be imposed after resignation. Fifth, willful and repeated refusal to comply with the directives of the Court and of the Office of the Court Administrator is itself gross misconduct.

Disposition

The Court found Caldito guilty of grave misconduct, falsification, and dishonesty, and imposed on him the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from holding public office in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and directed the Office of the Court Administrator to file the appropriate criminal complaint against him.

Remember This

Memorize this line: resignation is never an escape or an easy way out to evade administrative liability, so the accessory penalties of dismissal survive an accepted resignation. Examiners use this case to test the definition of grave misconduct and dishonesty, the binding force of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, and the rule that the accessory penalties of dismissal may be imposed even after the respondent has left the service.