VICTOR DE LA CRUZ, DONATO DE LA CRUZ, AND ARMANDO DURAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ALICIA F. RICAFORTE, RESPONDENT.

For resolution of the Court is a complaint for illegal recruitment
against respondent, Staff Assistant II, Office of the Clerk of Court Regional
Trial Court, Manila, originally filed before the Office of the Ombudsman.

Complainants allege that sometime in January, 1989, at the City
Hall, Manila, respondent recruited them for employment as seamen in Singapore;
and that during the period from January 7, 1989 to February 9, 1989, respondent
collected from them a total amount of P45,905.00 as
placement/facilitation fees (Rollo, pp. 5-8).

It appears from the records that complainants were supposed to
leave for Singapore on February 10, 1989 but the same was delayed pending the
completion of Armando Duran’s other requirements.  Complainants’ departure
were later scheduled for several times but none materialized.  On July 15, 1989, when complainants’
departure was again delayed, respondent offered them employment opportunities
in Japan.  Complainants waited for the
promised employment but to no avail.

On August 17, 1989, complainants learned from the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) that respondent was neither licensed
nor authorized by the latter to recruit workers for overseas employment.

On August 17 and 21, 1989, complainants executed a
complaint/affidavit before the POEA accusing respondent of illegal recruitment and/or estafa (Rollo,
pp. 5-8).

On September 15, 1989, complainants filed a complaint for illegal
recruitment against respondent before the Office of the Ombudsman.  On January 17, 1990, the Ombudsman dismissed
the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction stating that the charge of
illegal recruitment was not committed by respondent “in relation to her
office” (Annex “F”, respondent’s
affidavit).  Appropriate action as to the
administrative aspect of the complaint was however referred to the Executive
Judge, RTC, Manila (Ibid.).

Subsequently, the Executive Judge set the case for hearing to
resolve the issue of respondent’s administrative liability.

In her answer (Rollo, p. 22) to the
complaint before the Executive Judge, respondent denied that she represented
herself as having the capacity to recruit workers for overseas employment.  Instead, she alleged that complainants sought
her help in securing overseas employment and in her desire to help, she introduced complainants to Maximina
Natividad who promised to facilitate their
employment.  Respondent admitted having
received the money in the total amount of P40,905.00
from the complainants, but alleges that she acted merely as a conduit between Maximina Natividad and
complainants and that it was Natividad who actually
made use of complainants’ money.

Finding respondent’s answer unsatisfactory, the Executive Judge
scheduled the case for hearing.  On the
day of the hearing, respondent did not appear but asked for postponement.  Nevertheless, the Executive Judge proceeded
to hear the complainants.

In view of the inability of respondent to appear at the
investigation of the case, the Executive Judge required her to state her
defenses in affidavit form.  Thereafter,
respondent submitted her affidavit (Rollo, pp. 35-38)
reproducing practically the same defenses contained in her previous answer.

In a report dated July 24, 1990. 
Executive Judge Bernardo P. Pardo recommended
the dismissal of respondent from the service for serious misconduct in office.  After a review of the records, the Court
finds no cogent reason to disturb the aforesaid recommendation of the Executive
Judge.

While respondent in her answer vehemently denied having
represented herself as a recruiter for overseas employment and that she merely
acted as a conduit for the cash received from complainants which she delivered
to Maxima who allegedly made use of the money, nevertheless, such bare and
unsubstantiated denials are self-serving and deserve scant consideration to
merit belief.  Evidence to be believed
must not only come from the mouth of a credible source, but it must be credible
in itself (Castañares v. Court of Appeals, 92 SCRA
567).  In the case at bar, respondent did
not even appear nor adduce evidence in her defense before the investigating
judge during the scheduled hearings.

In any event, the Court notes that by respondent’s own letter
dated July 15, 1989, when complainants apparently lost interest in going to
Singapore, she informed complainants in writing that she “has also access
to the employer in Japan who is offering better benefits than that of
Singapore”.  The same letter
likewise stated that “it is therefore made clear to them (complainants)
that they are to report to me on the last week of July to personally meet the
said employer xxx”.  This admission
on the part of respondent, coupled with the receipt of P40,905.000 from
complainants as recruitment fees taken together with the unrebutted
testimony of complainants, is more than substantial evidence to prove that
indeed, respondent engaged herself in illegal recruitment.

Conduct required of court personnel must be beyond reproach and
must always be free from suspicion that may taint the judiciary.  The unauthorized act of private respondent in
soliciting employees for overseas employment, willfully and for profit, and her
deliberate failure to return the money received when no employment could be
found, is one which this Court cannot countenance.

Respondent was found to have been in “pursuit of private
business, profession or vocation without the permission required by the Civil
Service rules and regulations” (Sec. 36 [24], PD 807).  Given the peculiar nature of employment
within the judicial system, respondent is therefore guilty of conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service (Sec. 36 [27], Ibid.).

As this Court once held, “(t)he
conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the
dispensation of justice, x x x,
from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with
the heavy burden of responsibility.  His
conduct, at all time, must not only be characterized with propriety and decorum
but above all else must be above suspicion” (Jereos,
Jr. v. Reblando, Sr., 71 SCRA 126 [1976]).

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court Resolved to DISMISS
respondent ALICIA F. RICAFORTE from the service for serious misconduct in
office with prejudice to reinstatement or re­employment in any branch of the
government, including government-owned or controlled corporation.  All retirement benefits or privileges to
which respondent may be entitled are forfeited.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Paras, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.