RE: LOSS OF EXTRAORDINARY ALLOWANCE CHECK NO. 1106739 OF JUDGE EDUARDO U. JOVELLANOS.

This matter arose from the loss of a check issued in the name of
Judge Eduardo U. Jovellanos, then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit
Trial Court (MCTC), Alcala, Pangasinan.

In an indorsement dated May 2, 2002, Deputy Court Administrator
Christopher O. Lock referred to the Complaint and Investigation Division,
Office of Administrative Services, through Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy
Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, for investigation, the
anomalous encashment of Landbank check no. 1106739 in the name of Judge
Jovellanos. There was a possible involvement of some court employees,
particularly in the Finance Division, Financial Management Office, Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA).

The circumstances surrounding the anomalous encashment of the
said (which was reported lost) are as follows:

Judge Jovellanos was suspended for one year pursuant to a Supreme
Court en banc resolution dated August 1, 2000 in A.M. No. MTJ-00-1289. Sometime
in the third week of February 2002, Judge Jovellanos filed his clearance
application in connection with his compulsory retirement effective January 25,
2002. In the process, the Checks Disbursement Division, Financial Management
Office, OCA, discovered that Judge Jovellanos was overpaid by P5,250
representing his extraordinary allowance for the month of November 2000 through
check no. 1106739. But Judge Jovellanos was under suspension then. It was
discovered that said check was neither mailed to the payee nor cancelled. Upon verification at the Reconciliation
Unit, it was found that the subject check was deposited, on April 2, 2001, at
the Metrobank Branch in Cabanatuan City, under account no. 3119275429. One Marietta Rodriguez, an employee of the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija, was the one who endorsed
the check.

In two separate letters respectively dated March 14, 2002 and
March 20, 2002, Virginia Togle, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Checks
Disbursement Division, requested Marietta Rodriguez to explain her
participation as endorser of the check.

In her reply dated April 1, 2002, Marietta Rodriguez explained
that the said check was given to her by Shirley Chua, Cashier II, Accounting
Division, Office of the Court Administrator, as payment for an existing
obligation. She also admitted having approached Chua on several occasions to
discount checks for cash. Likewise, there were times when she borrowed money
from her at minimal interest.

In her testimony dated May 16, 2002, Shirley Chua admitted using
the check to pay for the carpet she bought from Marietta Rodriguez. She
reiterated the statement in her affidavit dated April 30, 2002, submitted to
Virginia Togle, that the check was encashed with her by Rosario Santos, a
utility worker assigned as processor of checks at the Finance Division, OCA.
She further stated that she merely accommodated Rosario Santos since Santos was
an officemate and she used to enter into similar transactions with apparent
authority from the payees. In addition, she admitted having encashed checks of
Supreme Court and lower court employees representing their dividends, salaries
and allowances at discounted values and sometimes lending money to them. She
did all this to help employees in dire need of money.

In her comment dated May 23, 2002, Rosario Santos denied Shirley
Chua’s allegations and alleged that she (Rosario Santos) could not have
approached the latter (Shirley Chua) in November 2000 for the purpose of
encashing the subject check as it was “deposited 5 months later.” The check was
among those she endorsed to the Checks Disbursement Division for cancellation
on April 16, 2001. As proof of the transmittal, Santos presented a photocopy of
the page of the record book evidencing that Teresita Damian, Accounting I,
Checks Disbursement Division, received the subject check. However, she could
not explain how the check was encashed at a much earlier date, on April 2,
2001.

Moreover, Santos blamed the Checks Disbursement Division for its
failure to call her attention much earlier. While she admitted having referred
employees to Chua for encashment of their checks, Santos denied transacting
personally with Chua. She submitted two affidavits of officemates attesting to
the fact that Chua was in fact engaged in the encashment of checks and lending
money for a consideration.

Teresita Damian, on the other hand, denied Santos’ allegation
that the latter transmitted the subject check to her. When presented with a
photocopy of the page of the record book allegedly evidencing her receipt of 3
checks, among which was check no. 1106739, she admitted that the signature was
hers. However, she insisted that she received only 2 checks (check nos. 1040899
and 1090934) on April 16, 2001 and that check no. 1106739 was not one of them.
Damian claimed she always reminded Santos to transmit to her immediately all
the checks for cancellation so that she could finalize the entries in her
records but Santos did not do so.

On May 29, 2002, the Office of Administrative Services (OAS)
requested the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation for
examination of the handwriting of Rosario Santos in the record book to find out
whether the entries appearing thereon were written on the same date or not. The
office also sought to find out whether the bracket written by Damian to confirm
receipt of the 3 checks was altered. However, due to time constraints, the OAS
opted to withdraw the request from the NBI on July 26, 2002.

On August 14, 2002, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief
Administrative Officer Eden T. Candelaria submitted a memorandum finding
sufficient evidence of culpability against Rosario Santos for the loss of check
no. 1106739.

The Court, after a careful examination of the records of this
case, is convinced that respondent Rosario Santos is indeed responsible for
stealing, encashing and converting for her personal use the amount represented
by check no. 1106739 issued to Judge Eduardo U. Jovellanos.

While respondent denies the charge, her unsubstantiated disavowal
cannot stand against the positive and detailed account of Chua regarding her
(Santos) participation in the encashment of check no. 1106739. Chua narrated
how the check got to the hands of Marietta Rodriguez who endorsed the same.
Chua testified:

ATTY. MA. CARINA M. CUNANAN (Investigating Officer)

Q    Are you aware of the
alleged loss of check in favor of Judge Jovellanos?

A     Ganito po ang nangyari
d’yan, inilapit po sa akin yan ng taga Finance na si Charry o Rosario Santos
po. Nagpunta yan sa opisina ko at ang sabi ate palitan mo naman itong check
sabi ko naman ano yan? Tinanong ko kung nasan ang tao. Sabi n’ya nandyan lang
ate sa baba ayaw na n’yang umakyat ako na lang ang pinaakyat n’ya. Sigurado ka
bang nariyan sa baba? Oo naman ate, sabi po n’yang ganon. Tapos tiningnan ko po
yun check nakita ko na may pirma naman sa likod tapos yun pong date ng check is
November ata yun. Sabi ko ma-stale na to ah, di pa ate sabi n’yang ganon sa
akin so sabi ko po sa kasamahan ko kay Malou Garcia. Malou i-check mo nga ito
mukhang stale bumilang po si Malou at ang sabi ay hindi pa malapit na, malapit
ng ma-stale sabi n’ya tapos bumilang din si Charry. Sabi sa akin ni Charry kita
mo ate hindi pa. In good faith po ako kaya ko naman pinalitan yun.

Q    Bakit nagpapalit ka ba ng
check?

A     Hindi ko naman dini-deny
na nagpapalit ako ng check kasi po taga-rito din ang lumapit sa akin na
humihingi po ng tulong sa akin.

Q    Paano kang magpalit ng
check for a fee, for a consideration or what?

A     Bale po kung magkano
lang po ang ibigay nila sa akin.

xxx                                                                        xxx                                                                               xxx

Q    Yung kay Judge Jovellanos,
do you inquire kung nandoon ang tao o wala?

A     Ganito po kasi yan
Attorney, lumapit nga po sa akin si Rosario Santos sa opisina sabi n’ya ate
palitan mo naman itong check.

Q    Do you know Rosario
Santos personally?

A     Opo, nakikilala ko po
s’ya.

Q    Or you simply know
because she is an officemate?

A     Dahil ka-opisina natin
dito kaya nagtiwala naman po ako sa kanya. In good faith naman po ako dahil ang
check na yun…

Q    Do you know from what
division is she?

A     Opo, sa Finance po s’ya.

Q    So nagtiwala ka?

A     Nagtiwala po ako sa
kanya dahil ang isang check once na lumabas yan ay dumaan sa tamang proceso po
yan.

Q    Pinalitan mo naman?

A     Opo, kasi sya po ang
naglapit noon at humingi siya ng tulong.

Q    From there what happened,
after na ma-encash sa iyo?

A     Wala na po umalis na po
s’ya sa opisina.

Q    How did it go to the hand
of a certain Marietta Rodriguez?

A     Ganito naman po yung kay
Marietta Rodriguez. Binayad ko po ito sa kanya doon sa nakuha kong carpet. May
nakuha po akong carpet sa kanya sinisingil na po ng time na yun galing po ako
dito sa Maynila wala pa naman akong cash noon that time na yun. So sabi ko
pwede bang ito na lang ang ibayad ko kasi ipinalit lang din yan sa akin sa
opisina. Tinanggap naman po n’ya yun check.

Q    Do you recall kung kailan
ipinalit ni Charry yung check?

A     Siguro po kung April
naipasok yun, mga March po siguro yun.

Q    March na ipinalit ni
Charry sa iyo?

A     Mga March nga siguro.

Q    Bakit mo naman kilala si
Mrs. Rodriguez?

A     Kasi po kababayan ko po
s’ya, bale ipinakilala po s’ya sa akin ni Merly na ka-opisina n’ya. Si Merly po
ang nagpunta sa bahay namin tapos si Merly nga daw ang nagpakilala sa kanya.
Sabi kay Marietta sinong nagpakilala sayo na pumunta ka dito. Si Merly daw po.

On the other hand, respondent denies the allegations of Chua. She
admits that she borrows money occasionally from Chua, but denies encashing
checks and other similar transactions with her. To prove her allegation, Santos
submitted the affidavits of Consuelo Vivo and Aileen Reyes attesting to the
fact that they requested her to accompany them to Chua to encash their checks.

Respondent’s denial constitutes self-serving and negative
defense. The affidavits of Consuelo Vivo and Aileen Reyes, together with their
testimonies taken by the Complaint and Administrative Services, OAS, do not
speak in defense of Santos. They merely establish the fact that Chua is engaged
in the business of “check rediscounting.”

Likewise, the fact that the subject check was negotiated on April
2, 2001 belies respondent’s claim that she transmitted it to Damian on April
16, 2001. As observed by Chief Administrative Officer Eden T. Candelaria in her
memorandum, there is a glaring alteration in the entries of April 16, 2001 on
the alleged transmittal of the check. The entry representing check no. 1106739
appears to have been written much later than the other two checks (nos. 1040899
and 1090934) and that the bracket line appears to have been extended upward in
order to make it appear that check no. 1106739 was received simultaneously with
the two other checks.

Lastly, as testified to by Florence Bautista, Santos’ immediate
supervisor, and as admitted by respondent herself, the latter tendered her
resignation immediately after the discovery of the anomalous transaction.
Respondent reported back to work only when prevailed upon by her superior. This
act of Santos is indicative of her guilt as flight is in criminal cases. The
natural reaction of an innocent person confronted with a supposedly malicious
accusation would be to face her accuser and clear her name.

By stealing and encashing the check of Judge Jovellanos without
the latter’s knowledge and consent, respondent has shown herself unfit for the
confidence and trust demanded by her work as check-processor. Her acts amounted
to gross misconduct and dishonesty, and violated the time-honored
constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust. Her actuation
is a disgrace to the judiciary and erodes the people’s faith in the judicial
system.

Pursuant to Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules
implementing Book V of Executive Order 292, grave misconduct and dishonesty are
classified as grave offenses for which the penalty of dismissal is imposed.
Section 9 of the same rule provides:

The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it the cancellation of
eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits and the
disqualification for reemployment in the government service. Further, it may be
imposed without prejudice to criminal or civil liability.

The Court also notes that this anomalous transaction could not
have happened without the facility provided by Chua through her business of
“check rediscounting”. Her business facilitated the commission of fraud by
unscrupulous employees, as shown in the case at bar. Even if the intention of
Chua was really “to help court employees,” especially those in the far-flung
provinces, this will not absolve her from liability for the damage she caused
to the judiciary and the unsuspecting payees. She redeemed checks issued by
this Court at a discount even without the proper endorsement of the payee. In
the case of Alday et al. v. Cruz,^[1] respondent was held liable for conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service for confronting the complainants
and threatening them with a gun during a traffic altercation. The same is true
in the case of Recio v. Acuña,^[2] where respondents Villalobos and
Lacaden were held liable for covering up for co-respondent Acuña while he was
out of the country and by receiving his salary when he was no longer entitled
to it.

Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service
is a grave offense under Sec. 23 (t), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. The penalty for this misconduct
is suspension for six months and one day to one year, for the first offense,
and the penalty for dismissal for the second offense. This being respondent’s
first offense, we deem it proper to impose upon her the penalty of suspension
for eleven months.

Shirley Chua likewise violated the court’s policy in
Administrative Circular No. 1-99 that employees should never use their office
as residence or for any other purpose than for court or judicial functions. The
Court cannot tolerate the wrongdoings of its employees which may jeopardize
public faith and confidence in the judiciary. Hence, as recommended by the OCA,
she deserves to be penalized with an additional one-month suspension without
pay and likewise ordered to immediately cease and desist from engaging in any
form of personal business and other financial transactions, the same being
inimical to the maintenance of the Court’s good name and dignity.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Rosario Santos,
GUILTY of gross misconduct and dishonesty and hereby orders her DISMISSAL from
the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits which she may be
entitled to, if any, with prejudice to re-employment in the government,
including government-owned and controlled corporations. On the other hand,
Shirley Chua is hereby SUSPENDED for a total of twelve (12) months without pay
and directed to stop her check-rediscounting business immediately, with a
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be
dealt with more severely.

This resolution is immediately executory. The Office of the Court
Administrator shall see to it that copies of this resolution be immediately
served upon Rosario Santos and Shirley Chua.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Acting C.J.), Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona,
Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna,
JJ., concur.

Davide, Jr., C.J., and
Puno, J., on official business.

^[1]
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530.

^[2]
122 SCRA 70 [1993].