LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. LIZA E. PEREZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, RESPONDENT.

Toledo versus Perez

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Liberty Toledo, the City Treasurer of Manila, filed two complaints against Liza Perez, a Court Stenographer III in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The complaints charge Perez with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, arising from her deposit into her personal savings account of manager's checks that were payable to the City Treasurer of Manila and that had been issued as payment for business taxes but were covered by fake receipts. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct for judicial personnel even in their private dealings, and because it shows how the Court treats a public servant who resigns before judgment can be imposed.

Procedural History

The first complaint was addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator, which directed Perez to comment. The second complaint was first filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, which referred it to the Office of the Court Administrator because Perez was employed in the Judiciary. The Court referred the cases to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila for investigation, report, and recommendation, and later re-docketed the second complaint as a regular administrative matter. When that judge was appointed to the Court of Appeals, the cases were reassigned to another judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila for joint assessment and recommendation. The investigating judge recommended dismissal for insufficiency of evidence. The Office of the Court Administrator disagreed and recommended a finding of guilt, with the monetary equivalent of six months of suspension deducted from Perez's benefits. The cases were consolidated and resolved by the Supreme Court in this decision.

Facts

In April 2000, two corporate taxpayers sent their representatives to the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila to pay business taxes. One delivered a manager's check for 339,881 pesos and 35 centavos payable to the City Treasurer of Manila. The other delivered a manager's check for 61,845 pesos and 92 centavos payable to the Office of the Treasurer of Manila. In both instances, the treasury employees who received the checks issued fake receipts.

The two checks reached a fixer named Rogelio Clemente, who gave them to Jesus Agustin, Jr., a friend of Perez. Agustin asked Perez to rediscount the checks, and she agreed on the condition that the bank would accept and clear them. Perez deposited the checks in her personal savings account with Land Bank, and the bank accepted and cleared them.

When Toledo discovered the fake receipts, she investigated and traced both checks to Perez's personal account. She filed the two complaints. In her defense, Perez claimed that her transaction with Agustin had no relation to her position as court stenographer, that she acted in good faith, and that she was an innocent victim. The investigating judge later found that thirty eight checks payable to the City Treasurer of Manila, totaling 1,980,784 pesos and 78 centavos, had been deposited in Perez's personal account and cleared by the bank. Perez resigned effective the first of April 2003.

Issues

• Whether or not Perez is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
• Whether or not Perez's claim that her transactions were private and unrelated to her office excuses her from administrative liability.
• Whether or not resignation from the service bars the imposition of a penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 52, paragraph A, subparagraph 20, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is a grave offense punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense.

This provision supplies the classification of the offense and the range of penalties, which the Court applies in fixing Perez's liability.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found Perez liable. The Rules do not define conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, so the Court supplied the definition from its own jurisprudence: it refers to acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish, or tend to diminish, the people's faith in the Judiciary. Perez's act of depositing thirty eight checks payable to the City Treasurer of Manila, amounting to 1,980,784 pesos and 78 centavos, reflected adversely on the integrity of the Judiciary. The Court stressed that she should have been alarmed that all the checks were payable to the City Treasurer and that her friend had procured them from a known fixer.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the claim that the transactions were purely private. The image of the Judiciary is mirrored in the conduct of its personnel whether inside or outside the court, and court personnel must exhibit a high sense of integrity not only in official duties but also in personal affairs. The Court quoted its own teaching:

Public servants must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity in their performance of official duties and in their personal affairs, so as to preserve the Court's good name and standing.

On the third issue, the Court held that resignation does not erase liability. Since Perez had already resigned, the penalty of suspension could no longer be served, so the Court imposed a fine in its place.

Doctrine

Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service means acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish, or tend to diminish, the people's faith in the Judiciary. It is a grave offense under Section 52, paragraph A, subparagraph 20, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. Court personnel must observe the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in their official duties and in their personal affairs, because the image of the Judiciary is mirrored in their conduct, official or otherwise. Private business dealings that drag the Court into a public scam impair that image and give rise to administrative liability. Resignation does not moot an administrative case, and where suspension can no longer be served, a fine may be imposed instead.

Disposition

The Court found Perez guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and, since she had already resigned, fined her 40,000 pesos.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that the image of the Judiciary is mirrored in the conduct of its personnel, official or otherwise, so integrity is required even in private affairs. Examiners use this case to test the definition of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and the rule that resignation does not bar administrative liability.