RE: INCIDENT REPORT RELATIVE TO A CRIMINAL CASE FILED AGAINST ROSEMARIE U. GARDUCE, CLERK III, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT (OCC), REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), PARANAQUE CITY

Re: Incident Report Relative to a Criminal Case Filed Against Rosemarie U. Garduce

The Case

This is an administrative case brought against Rosemarie U. Garduce, a Clerk III in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City. The matter began not with a formal complaint but with an incident report from the Clerk of Court, who reported her arrest by two private complainants after she received money to process a bail bond and failed to deliver it. The case matters because it is a clean, uncontested illustration of the rule that the sole act of receiving money from litigants, for whatever reason, is grave misconduct in the civil service and warrants the extreme penalty of dismissal on first offense.

Procedural History

The case originated in the Office of the Court Administrator, which received the incident report transmitted by the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City. The Office of the Court Administrator issued an indorsement directing Garduce to file her comment within ten days. When she failed to comply, it issued a tracer reiterating the order and granting her five more days. Despite repeated orders, she never filed a comment. After evaluation, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the matter be re-docketed as a regular administrative case, that Garduce be found guilty of grave misconduct and willful violation of the Court's rules, directives, and circulars, and that she be dismissed with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any government office. The case then came before the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, decided in November 2015.

Facts

On October 25, 2012, private complainants Marie Andrea Alarilla and Gwen Marie Lachica agreed with Garduce that she would process the bail bond of their father, who had a pending criminal case before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 196. At about nine in the morning, they went to the Office of the Clerk of Court and gave Garduce 2,000 pesos as initial payment. At around one in the afternoon, they met her again at a fast food restaurant in San Antonio Valley and handed her an additional 21,000 pesos.

When they received the receipt for their total payment, it stated only 20,500 pesos. At around four in the afternoon, they learned that their motion had been denied. They immediately demanded the return of their total payment of 23,000 pesos, but Garduce refused. They brought her to the Parañaque City Police Station, where she invoked her right to remain silent.

On October 27, 2012, the Parañaque City Prosecutor conducted an inquest proceeding and found probable cause to indict Garduce for the crime of estafa. In the administrative proceedings, the evidence against her stood completely uncontroverted: the receipt she signed acknowledging 20,500 pesos, and her failure to return the money despite not obtaining the promised bail bond.

Issues

• Whether or not Garduce is guilty of grave misconduct for accepting money from litigants in connection with the processing of a bail bond.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal with its accessory penalties is the proper penalty for her offense.
• Whether or not mitigating circumstances may be considered to temper the penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel provides:

Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any explicit or implicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions.

This is the core prohibition that Garduce violated when she accepted money for processing the bail bond.

Section 2(e), Canon III of the same Code provides:

Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, loan, gratuity, discount, favor, hospitality or service under circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that a major purpose of the donor is to influence the court personnel in performing official duties.

The circumstances of the payment, made by litigants to a court employee handling their father's bail bond, fall squarely within this prohibition.

Section 46(A)(3), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides that dismissal is the penalty for grave misconduct at the first offense. Section 52(a) of the same Rule provides that the penalty of dismissal shall carry with it the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service, and bar from taking the civil service examination. These fix the penalty once grave misconduct is established.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found Garduce guilty of grave misconduct. It held that the behavior of all employees and officials involved in the administration of justice, from judges to the most junior clerks, is circumscribed with a heavy responsibility. The evidence showed she accepted money for processing the bail bond, as proven by the receipt she signed and her failure to return the amount despite not obtaining the bond. The Court quoted its own ruling in Villahermosa versus Sarcia:

The sole act of receiving money from litigants, whatever the reason may be, is antithesis to being a court employee.

Since the allegations against her stood completely uncontroverted, the violation was clear.

On the second issue, the Court held that her act of collecting or receiving money from a litigant constituted grave misconduct in office and merited a grave penalty. Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dismissal is the penalty for grave misconduct at the first offense, carrying cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service, and bar from the civil service examination.

On the third issue, the Court acknowledged that in some cases it had exercised discretion to assess mitigating circumstances to temper the penalty provided by the Rules. It held, however, that this exception could not apply to Garduce because of her failure to comply with the directives of the Office of the Court Administrator to comment on the complaint against her. As a final note, the Court stressed that court personnel must avoid any impression of impropriety, misdeed, or negligence in the performance of their official functions, and that it does not hesitate to sanction improper conduct that violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes the faith of the public in the Judiciary.

Doctrine

First, the sole act of receiving money from litigants, whatever the reason may be, is antithesis to being a court employee and constitutes grave misconduct in office. Second, court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor, or benefit based on any explicit or implicit understanding that it shall influence their official actions, nor accept any favor or service under circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that a major purpose of the donor is to influence them in performing official duties. Third, dismissal is the penalty for grave misconduct at the first offense, and it carries cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service, and bar from the civil service examination. Fourth, the Court may temper the penalty upon mitigating circumstances, but not where the respondent has failed to comply with the directives of the Office of the Court Administrator.

Disposition

The Court found Rosemarie U. Garduce guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed her from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and disqualification from employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the sole act of receiving money from litigants, whatever the reason may be, is antithesis to being a court employee. Examiners use this case to test the penalty for grave misconduct at first offense and the rule that failure to obey the Office of the Court Administrator forecloses any mitigating circumstance.