FLORENCIO R. BERNABE, COMPLAINANT, VS. ZENAIDA C. GRIMALDO, COURT STENOGRAPHER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, MALOLOS CITY. RESPONDENT.

Bernabe versus Grimaldo

The Case

This is an administrative case. Florencio Bernabe filed a sworn complaint before the Supreme Court charging Zenaida Grimaldo, a Court Stenographer of the Regional Trial Court in Malolos City, with acts prejudicial to the best interest of public service. He alleged that she received money from him and his sister upon her representation that she could facilitate the transfer and subdivision of inherited property. The case matters because it shows how the Court treats a court employee who repeats the very misconduct for which she was previously disciplined and warned, and it fixes the penalty for a second offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed directly with the Supreme Court, which referred it to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter, that the respondent be found guilty of gross misconduct, and that she be dismissed from the service. The Supreme Court then issued a resolution re-docketing the complaint as a regular administrative matter and required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for decision on the pleadings. The complainant manifested his willingness. The respondent failed to comply within the period given, and so she was deemed to have agreed to submit the case on the pleadings. The Court then decided the case itself as an original administrative matter.

Facts

In the year 2000, the respondent received money from the complainant and his sister, Susana Bernabe Fuentes, to facilitate the transfer and subdivision of properties left by their late aunt. A handwritten note dated April 9, 2000 acknowledged receipt from Susana of 40,000 pesos, and another dated April 12, 2000 acknowledged 10,000 pesos, both as payment for inheritance tax, transfer of title, registration, tax declaration, and acceptance fees. A third note dated January 16, 2001 acknowledged receipt from the complainant of 80,000 pesos as payment for the subdivision of the Manggahan property, inheritance tax, and transfer tax. In all, the respondent received 130,000 pesos.

When the respondent failed to cause the transfer of the titles, the complainant sent her a demand letter dated June 14, 2006 asking for the return of the money. The respondent answered with a promissory note dated August 8, 2006, which she failed to pay upon maturity. The respondent also caused the notarization of a deed of partition which she herself had prepared without the knowledge and consent of the complainant and his sister, and the two were thereafter charged with falsification of public documents before the Municipal Trial Court of Malolos.

In her comment, the respondent admitted that she had promised to return the 130,000 pesos but said she could not do so because her husband had been rushed to the intensive care unit and later died, causing her grief and financial distress. She asked to settle the matter in installments and gave the complainant 15,000 pesos on February 9, 2007. The records also showed that she had twice been disciplined before: once for willful failure to pay a just debt, for which she was fined 500 pesos, and once in the earlier case of Roque versus Grimaldo, for asking money to facilitate the reconstitution of land titles, for which she was fined the equivalent of one month's salary and warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service for receiving money from litigants upon her representation that she could facilitate the transfer of their titles.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal is proper, given that this is her second offense for the same misconduct after a prior warning.

Applicable Provisions

Rule IV, Section 52(A)(20) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, under Rule IV, Section 52(A) (20) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, carries the penalty of suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first offense and dismissal for the second.

This fixes the penalty for the first offense and warns that a second offense is punished with dismissal, which is exactly the situation of the respondent.

Section 52(B)(2) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

Considering that this is respondent's second offense for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, such offense carries the penalty of dismissal from the service under Section 52(B) (2) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

This is the provision the Court applied in imposing dismissal rather than a lighter penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found the respondent guilty. She admitted receiving the 130,000 pesos and did not deny the circumstances of the receipt, namely that the money was given to her to facilitate the transfer and subdivision of the inherited properties. Her only defense was that she could not return the money because of her husband's medical emergency and death, and her promise to pay in installments. The Court held that this was beside the point. Her offense was not a mere failure to pay a debt; it was her receipt of money from individuals who gave it upon her representation that she could facilitate the transfer of titles because of her position as a court employee. Quoting its earlier ruling in Roque versus Grimaldo, the Court stressed that a stenographer's duty is essentially limited to transcription and does not generally entail dealing with party litigants, and that by giving the impression that she could handle the complainants' problems she violated the norm of conduct for court employees, which is to maintain a hands-off attitude in matters not their duty. The Court added that court personnel must at all times act with propriety and decorum and be above suspicion, because the image of a court of justice is mirrored in their conduct.

On the second issue, the Court held that dismissal was the only penalty. This was the respondent's second offense for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and the rules prescribe dismissal for the second offense. The Court said it would not hesitate to impose the ultimate penalty where an employee commits, without any remorse or hint of reformation, the same wrongful act for which she was previously disciplined and warned.

Doctrine

A court employee who receives money from litigants upon the representation that she can facilitate the transfer of their titles because of her position commits conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Court personnel must maintain a hands-off attitude in matters outside their official duties, and their conduct must at all times be characterized by propriety and decorum and be above suspicion. Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service carries suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense and dismissal for the second. Where the employee repeats the same misconduct after a prior warning, the Court imposes dismissal without hesitation.

Disposition

The Court found Zenaida Grimaldo guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service and dismissed her from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations, and ordered her to return 65,000 pesos to Florencio Bernabe and 50,000 pesos to Susana Bernabe Fuentes, totaling 115,000 pesos, within thirty days, with a warning that failure to do so may be a ground for contempt.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a second offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service carries dismissal, especially where the employee repeats the same act after a warning. Examiners like to use this case to test the penalty for a repeat administrative offense and the standard of conduct required of court employees who deal with litigants.