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

De la Cruz versus Ricaforte

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by complainants Victor de la Cruz, Donato de la Cruz, and Armando Duran against respondent Alicia Ricaforte, a Staff Assistant II in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The complainants accuse her of illegal recruitment, having allegedly collected placement and facilitation fees from them for promised overseas employment without any license or authority to do so. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a court employee who uses her position and her spare time to pursue private profit, and it supplies the standard of conduct demanded of everyone connected with the judiciary.

Procedural History

The complaint began as a charge for illegal recruitment filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the offense was not committed in relation to the respondent's office, but referred the administrative aspect to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The Executive Judge set the matter for hearing, required the respondent to state her defenses in affidavit form after she failed to appear, and thereafter recommended her dismissal from the service for serious misconduct in office. The case then reached the Supreme Court for review of that recommendation, and the Court resolved it in a per curiam decision.

Facts

Sometime in January 1989, at the Manila City Hall, the respondent recruited the complainants for employment as seamen in Singapore. From January 7 to February 9, 1989, she collected from them a total of 45,905 pesos as placement and facilitation fees. The complainants were supposed to leave on February 10, 1989, but the departure was delayed pending completion of Armando Duran's other requirements, and later scheduled departures never materialized.

On July 15, 1989, when the departure was again delayed, the respondent offered the complainants employment opportunities in Japan. They waited, but no employment came. On August 17, 1989, they learned from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration that the respondent was neither licensed nor authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment. They executed complaint affidavits before that office on August 17 and 21, 1989, and on September 15, 1989 filed the complaint for illegal recruitment with the Office of the Ombudsman.

In her answer before the Executive Judge, the respondent denied representing herself as a recruiter. She claimed the complainants sought her help, that she introduced them to Maximina Natividad who promised to facilitate their employment, and that she was a mere conduit who received 40,905 pesos and delivered it to Natividad. She did not appear at the scheduled hearing, and her later affidavit repeated the same defenses.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent engaged in illegal recruitment despite her bare denials that she acted only as a conduit for the money.
• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for serious misconduct in office, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and pursuit of private business without permission.

Applicable Provisions

Section 36, paragraph 24 of Presidential Decree Number 807, the Civil Service Decree, provides:

Section 36. Discipline: General Provisions. The following are grounds for disciplinary action: x x x (24) Pursuit of private business, profession or vocation without the permission required by the Civil Service rules and regulations.

This provision supplies the ground for liability because the respondent solicited workers for overseas employment for profit without the required permission.

Section 36, paragraph 27 of the same decree provides:

Section 36. Discipline: General Provisions. The following are grounds for disciplinary action: x x x (27) Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

This provision is the second ground, given the peculiar nature of employment within the judicial system.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent's bare and unsubstantiated denials are self-serving and deserve scant consideration. Evidence to be believed must not only come from the mouth of a credible source, but it must be credible in itself. The respondent did not even appear nor adduce evidence in her defense before the investigating judge. Her own letter of July 15, 1989 stated that she had access to an employer in Japan offering better benefits than Singapore, and that the complainants were to report to her on the last week of July to personally meet the said employer. This admission, coupled with her receipt of 40,905 pesos as recruitment fees and the unrebutted testimony of the complainants, is more than substantial evidence that she engaged in illegal recruitment.

On the second issue, the Court stressed that the 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 soliciting employees for overseas employment, willfully and for profit, and the deliberate failure to return the money received when no employment could be found, cannot be countenanced. The respondent was found to have been in pursuit of private business without the permission required by the Civil Service rules and regulations, and given the peculiar nature of employment within the judicial system, she is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Doctrine

A court employee who solicits workers for overseas employment for profit without the required permission is liable for pursuit of private business without permission and for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Bare and unsubstantiated denials are self-serving and deserve scant consideration, while substantial evidence, including the employee's own written admissions and receipt of recruitment fees, suffices to establish the administrative offense. The conduct of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must not only be characterized with propriety and decorum but above all else must be above suspicion.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the respondent 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 corporations, and forfeited all retirement benefits or privileges to which she may be entitled.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the conduct of everyone connected with the judiciary, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must not only be characterized with propriety and decorum but above all else must be above suspicion. Examiners use this case to test the administrative liability of court personnel for private business and conduct prejudicial to the service, and the rule that bare denials cannot overcome substantial evidence.