LUCINA L. REGALADO, COMPLAINANT, VS.  LILIA S. BUENA, CLERK OF COURT, MTCC, NAGA CITY, RESPONDENT.

Regalado versus Buena

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by Lucina Regalado against Lilia Buena, the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities of Naga City. The complainant charged the respondent with dishonesty and corrupt practices in connection with money entrusted to her for the redemption of foreclosed properties. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a court employee who uses her office and even Supreme Court official receipts to lend an aura of officialdom to a purely private transaction, and it teaches the penalty rules that apply when the erring employee has already left the service.

Procedural History

The verified letter-complaint was filed with the Office of the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Judge David Naval, who required the respondent to answer and conducted the investigation. An amended complaint was later filed. After investigation, Judge Naval submitted his Report and Recommendation finding the respondent administratively liable for taking advantage of her position and for her unauthorized use of Supreme Court official receipts, and recommending suspension for six months without pay and disqualification as an accountable officer. The Supreme Court then resolved to refer the case to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. The Office of the Court Administrator declined to adopt the Executive Judge's view that the private transaction was outside the respondent's administrative liability, and through Senior Deputy Administrator Reynaldo Suarez recommended dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency. The case reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court rendered its decision on June 29, 1999.

Facts

The complainant's two daughters, Ma. Luisa Grosse and Ma. Asuncion Trabitzsch, both married to German nationals and residing in Germany, entrusted money to the respondent for the redemption of a residential house and lot foreclosed by the Philippine National Bank and a piece of land mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Cabusao. The respondent issued six Supreme Court official receipts and signed a private document entitled Trust Deposits. In her answer she admitted receiving 523,000 pesos and claimed she had fully complied with her obligations, paying the judgment amount in a civil case, the Rural Bank of Cabusao, and the Philippine National Bank, and causing the transfer of the title to the complainant's daughters.

An amended complaint charged her with failing to pay the creditor banks and with causing the transfer of the complainant's properties to the daughters without the complainant's knowledge and authority. The audit report of Naga City Auditor Francisco Velasco disclosed that during the period from September 1990 to September 1991, thirteen official government receipts were issued by the respondent for private transactions, and that she concealed the actual amounts she received by understating them and changing the particulars of payment. COA Auditor Francisco dela Viña testified that the handwritten entries in the duplicate copies differed from the originals as to the names of the payor, the nature of payment, and the amount paid. The originals showed a total of 450,000 pesos received, while the duplicates showed only 68.50 pesos.

During the investigation, Mrs. Grosse wrote to Judge Naval asking that the case be withdrawn because the respondent had complied with her obligations. The Executive Judge found that the complainant was not a party to the private transaction, that the money came from her daughters, and that any dispute over the transfer of title belonged to the regular courts. He nonetheless found the respondent liable for taking advantage of her position and for her unauthorized and illegal use of Supreme Court official receipts, and for issuing originals whose entries were not traced on the duplicates, an act constituting falsification of public documents.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent may be held administratively liable for entering into a private transaction notwithstanding that it was not related to her duties as Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of dishonesty for her unauthorized use of Supreme Court official receipts and for altering the duplicate copies to conceal the true amounts and nature of the collections.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal may still be imposed, considering that the respondent had already been considered resigned from the service in a prior administrative case.
• Whether or not the forfeiture of her leave credits and retirement benefits is proper.

Applicable Provisions

Rule Fourteen, Section Twenty-three of the Omnibus Rules of the Civil Service provides:

The penalty of dismissal shall be imposed upon a civil service employee for dishonesty on commission of the first offense.

This fixes the gravity of the respondent's offense and the penalty that would ordinarily attach to it.

Rule Fourteen, Section Ten of the same Omnibus Rules provides:

The penalty of forced resignation shall carry with it disqualification for employment in the government service for at least one year. However, it may or may not contain conditions relative to the forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification regarding reemployment in a specific class of position.

This provision supplies the legal basis for forfeiting benefits even where the employee is no longer in the service and can no longer be dismissed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator and rejected the Executive Judge's view that the private transaction carried no administrative liability. By the nature of her office, the respondent had no business involving herself in a private transaction. As clerk of court, whose duties are essential to the proper and prompt administration of justice, she was required to devote her time and attention fully to the service. She should not have acted as negotiator between the complainant's daughters and the bank, as this could result in conflicts of interest, as indeed eventually happened. She used her position to her own advantage by making it appear that she was dealing with the daughters in her official capacity.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent's act of issuing official receipts for private transactions was unauthorized and highly irregular. Worse, she deliberately made alterations on the duplicates, particularly as to the nature of collection and the amount collected, to conceal her patent dishonesty and to avoid discovery by the Commission on Audit or by the Court. Although no pecuniary damage was incurred by the government, there was still falsification because the particulars in the originals were altered in the duplicates to cover up the real transaction. This is gross dishonesty, which cannot be countenanced considering that she was an accountable officer occupying a very delicate position. By such act she jeopardized the public trust in and the integrity of the judiciary, and forfeited her right to remain in the service.

On the third issue, the Court noted that the respondent's act constitutes dishonesty, punishable by dismissal on commission of the first offense under the Omnibus Rules. However, because the Court had earlier considered her resigned from the service after finding her guilty of misappropriating public funds in another administrative case, she could no longer be penalized by dismissal. Owing to the serious nature of her offense, the Court was constrained to penalize her in an appropriate manner to vindicate the wrong she had committed against the service.

On the fourth issue, the Court deemed it proper to declare forfeited whatever leave credits and retirement benefits might still be due her. It recalled that in the earlier case the release of these benefits had been allowed in due course, but now the ends of justice would not be served if they were released, which in effect would mean rewarding her despite her misdeeds. The Court held that forfeiture is not incompatible with its earlier decision considering her resigned, because the Omnibus Rules allow forced resignation to carry conditions relative to the forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits.

Doctrine

A clerk of court must devote full time and attention to the service and may not engage in private transactions, especially as a negotiator between litigants and banks, because this creates conflicts of interest and erodes public trust in the judiciary. The unauthorized use of Supreme Court official receipts for private transactions, coupled with alterations in the duplicate copies to conceal the true amounts and nature of the collections, constitutes gross dishonesty and falsification, even if the government suffers no pecuniary damage. Dishonesty is punishable by dismissal on the first offense under the Civil Service Omnibus Rules. Where the employee can no longer be dismissed because she has already been considered resigned, the Court may still forfeit her leave credits and retirement benefits, since forced resignation may carry such conditions, and bar her from holding any position in all branches of government.

Disposition

The Court ordered the forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement benefits still due the respondent and barred her from holding any position in all branches of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that dishonesty is punishable by dismissal on the first offense, and where dismissal is no longer possible because the employee has resigned, the Court will still forfeit her benefits to vindicate the wrong done to the service. Examiners use this case to test the penalty for gross dishonesty by a court employee and the rule that forced resignation may carry forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits.