ANONYMOUS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JESSICA MAXILINDA A. IBARRETA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF IRIGA CITY, CAMARINES SUR, BRANCH 36, RESPONDENT.

Anonymous versus Ibarreta

The Case

This is an administrative case brought against Jessica Maxilinda A. Ibarreta, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Camarines Sur, Branch 36. It began with an anonymous complaint charging her with acquiring ill-gotten wealth and with running a money lending business during office hours. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement that court personnel may not engage in private business of any kind, even outside office hours, and because it shows how the Court calibrates the penalty of simple misconduct for a first-time offender performing frontline duties.

Procedural History

The case began in the Office of the Ombudsman, which received an anonymous call and an undated anonymous complaint, and forwarded the matter through a letter indorsement to the Office of the Court Administrator. The Office of the Court Administrator referred it to Executive Judge Timoteo A. Panga, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court for investigation. After Judge Panga submitted a partial report, Judge Manuel M. Rosales was designated as the new executive judge and took over the investigation, submitting his own report. In a Memorandum dated May 24, 2017, the Office of the Court Administrator found the charge of ill-gotten wealth without merit but found prima facie evidence of simple misconduct, and recommended that the matter be docketed and that the respondent be made to comment. After her comment, the Office of the Court Administrator submitted a report and recommendation dated November 6, 2018, recommending a finding of guilt for simple misconduct, a fine of 5,000 pesos, and a directive to cease and desist from money lending. The case then came before the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator, except as to the amount of the fine.

Facts

At around two o'clock in the afternoon of January 7, 2016, the Office of the Ombudsman received an anonymous call reporting that the respondent displayed wealth disproportionate to her monthly wage, ran a money lending business, and was a powerful and influential person because judges in the Regional Trial Court always gave her special preference. An undated anonymous complaint followed, and the matter was indorsed to the Office of the Court Administrator and referred for investigation to the executive judges of the Regional Trial Court.

The investigating judges observed that the respondent's marriage had been annulled; that she had two college-level children studying at a private university in Naga City; and that she owned a house and two vehicles, all declared in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth. They found no adverse findings on her work performance as Sheriff, no complaint of misuse of office, and no report of harassment or oppression from any litigant or counsel. They did find, however, that she ran a money lending business locally known as five-six, charging interest rates of as much as ten percent per month, apparently the source of her wealth, and that she personally conducted this business even during office hours.

In her comment, the respondent refuted the charge of ill-gotten wealth point by point. On the money lending business, however, she merely asserted that it was the business of her late mother, discontinued when her mother passed away. The Office of the Court Administrator treated this as an unconvincing and dismissive retort, and as an implicit admission that she was indeed lending money during office hours.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable for her money lending business activities during office hours.
• Whether or not the penalty of suspension should be imposed, or a fine in lieu of suspension, considering her length of service and her frontline function as a Sheriff.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel provides:

Section 1. 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 is the standard the respondent violated by devoting her official time to her lending business.

Administrative Circular No. 5 dated October 4, 1988 provides:

ACCORDINGLY, all officials and employees of the Judiciary are hereby enjoined from being commissioned as insurance agents or from engaging in any such related activities, and, to immediately desist therefrom if presently engaged thereat.

The Court reads this circular as prohibiting all officials and employees of the Judiciary from engaging directly in any private business, vocation, or profession, even outside office hours.

Section 46 (D) (2), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies simple misconduct as a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense. This fixes the range of the imposable penalty.

Section 47 (1) (b) and (2) of the same Rules provides:

Section 47. Penalty of Fine. The following are the guidelines for the penalty of fine: 1. Upon the request of the head of office or the concerned party and when supported by justifiable reason/s the disciplining authority may allow payment of fine in place of suspension if any of the following circumstances are present: b. When the respondent is actually discharging frontline functions or those directly dealing with the public and the personnel complement of the office is insufficient to perform such function; 2. The payment of penalty of fine in lieu of suspension shall be available in Grave, Less Grave, and Light Offenses where the penalty imposed is for six (6) months or less at the ratio of one (1) day of suspension from the service to one (1) day fine.

This authorizes the Court to convert the suspension into a fine equivalent to the period of suspension, which is exactly what it did.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the respondent administratively liable for simple misconduct. It noted that as early as the Memorandum of May 24, 2017, she had already been cleared of the charge of ill-gotten wealth, so the only question left was her money lending during office hours. The Court stressed that Administrative Circular No. 5 prohibits court officials and employees from engaging directly in any private business, vocation, or profession, even outside office hours, because full-time officers and employees must render full-time service, and only then can undue delays in the administration of justice be avoided. It described moonlighting as conduct that, while often legal in itself, can amount to malfeasance in office by the very nature of the position held. The respondent's lending business, an accusation she failed to sufficiently rebut, put the integrity of her office under undeserved suspicion and diminished the reputation of her office and of the courts in the esteem of the public. The Court also reminded that sheriffs, as officers of the court and agents of the law, must always demonstrate integrity, for once they lose the people's trust, they also diminish the people's faith in the entire judiciary.

On the second issue, the Court adopted the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator except as to the amount of the fine. While simple misconduct is punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for a first offense, the Court invoked its discretion to temper the harshness of penalties when warranted by the circumstances, as explained in Cabigao versus Nery, where factors such as length of service and the nature of the respondent's functions are weighed. Considering that this was her first offense in thirty years of service, and that she performs a frontline function as a Sheriff, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to her salary for one month and one day, pursuant to Section 47 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

Doctrine

Court personnel must commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours, and Administrative Circular No. 5 goes further, enjoining all officials and employees of the Judiciary from engaging directly in any private business, vocation, or profession, even outside office hours. Engaging in a money lending business while serving as a Sheriff is simple misconduct, because misconduct is an intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior connected with the performance of official functions, and without corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule, the offense is simple and not grave. For a first offense of simple misconduct, the Court may temper the penalty and impose a fine equivalent to the period of suspension, especially where the respondent has rendered long service and performs frontline functions whose interruption would prejudice the public.

Disposition

The Court found Jessica Maxilinda A. Ibarreta guilty of simple misconduct, ordered her to pay a fine equivalent to her salary for one month and one day, sternly warned her that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely, and directed that a copy of the decision be attached to her personal record.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that court personnel may not engage in any private business, even outside office hours, and doing so is simple misconduct. Examiners like to use this case on the scope of Administrative Circular No. 5 and on the Court's power to impose a fine in lieu of suspension for a first-time offender with long service and frontline duties.