HON. MONTANO C. MEDEL, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. AILEEN L. GUILLEN, FORMER UTILITY WORKER I, BRANCH 2, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BACOLOD CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, RESPONDENT.

Medel versus Guillen

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by Judge Montano Medel, Jr., the presiding judge of Branch 2 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Bacolod City, against Aileen Guillen, who was then a Utility Worker I of the same court. The complaint arose from an incident report charging her with collecting irregular fees from couples whose civil marriages were solemnized in the judge's sala, and with borrowing money from litigants and others attending court proceedings. The case matters for two reasons: it settles the rule that resignation does not extinguish administrative liability, and it clarifies, once and for all, the correct designation of the offense when a court employee's misconduct has no direct relation to her official duties.

Procedural History

The incident report of Judge Medel was submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator, which sent three indorsements directing Guillen to comment on the charges. Registry return receipts showed that she received them, but she filed no comment to any of them. The matter was elevated to the Judicial Integrity Board, which, in its report and recommendation, found her liable for gross misconduct and recommended dismissal from the service. Because she had already resigned, the Board instead recommended forfeiture of her benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government. The case then reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, decided by the Court en banc.

Facts

In April 2019, Guillen sent a text message to Shaneen Bacong-Morcillo, one of the contracting parties in a civil marriage raffled to the sala of Judge Medel, demanding 100 pesos from each of the 21 wedding sponsors, or a total of 2,100 pesos. Six days after the wedding ceremony, Shaneen and her husband went to the court to give the money to Guillen. Inside the court, the Branch Clerk of Court told them that the court collects nothing from wedding sponsors, and Guillen, standing beside the clerk, denied collecting the amount. Shaneen was constrained to show Guillen's message to the clerk and to Judge Medel. Shaneen's mother also executed an affidavit stating that during the wedding ceremony, Guillen handed her an envelope intended for cash collection from the principal sponsors.

Judge Medel also cited a memorandum showing that Guillen charged an additional 2,000 pesos, termed "to expedite," for the release of a copy of the marriage contract from the Philippine Statistics Authority. He further called her attention to her practice of borrowing money from litigants and others attending proceedings before his sala, attaching demand letters from several creditors for debts amounting to 20,000.01 pesos, 230,267.50 pesos, 342,396.00 pesos, and 50,000 pesos.

Guillen tendered her resignation in August 2019, after the memoranda requiring her to explain had been issued. Despite three directives from the Office of the Court Administrator, she never filed a comment on the charges.

Issues

• Whether or not Guillen's resignation pending investigation rendered the administrative case moot and extinguished her administrative liability.
• Whether or not Guillen's failure to file a comment despite three directives constituted a waiver of her right to defend herself and an implied admission of the allegations.
• Whether or not Guillen is liable for gross misconduct, or for the separate offense of prejudicial conduct that gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal may be imposed on a respondent who has already been separated from the service by resignation, and if not, what penalty may be imposed in lieu thereof.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14, paragraph l of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, defines the offense the Court ultimately applied:

This charge is added to cover acts or omissions which are not strictly part of the performance of one's official functions, but nonetheless are punished as they diminish or tend to diminish the people's faith in the Judiciary.

This provision bears on the case because Guillen's acts of collecting fees and borrowing money were not strictly part of her duties as a utility worker, yet they tarnished the image of the Judiciary.

Section 17 of the same Rule, as amended, provides the penalties in lieu of dismissal for a respondent already separated from the service:

Forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Supreme Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; and/or a fine of more than 100,000 pesos but not exceeding 200,000 pesos.

This provision bears on the case because it supplied the penalty actually imposed, since dismissal could no longer be carried out.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Guillen's administrative liability subsists notwithstanding her resignation. Resignation is not a way out to evade administrative liability when court personnel are facing an administrative sanction. Her resignation, tendered after the memoranda requiring her to explain, was indicative of her guilt, much like flight in criminal cases.

On the second issue, the Court held that Guillen's repeated failure to comment, despite three directives, constituted a waiver of her right to defend herself. Her silence operated as a tacit admission of the allegations, for it is against human nature to remain silent in the face of false accusations. The Court nevertheless stressed that the evidence against her went beyond her silence, since she was caught red-handed charging irregular fees and acting as a fixer.

On the third issue, the Court modified the finding of the Judicial Integrity Board. It held that misconduct, whether simple or gross, must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the court personnel's official duties. Since Guillen's acts were not connected with her official functions, the proper offense is prejudicial conduct that gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service. To fall under this offense, the act complained of should be without a direct relation or connection with the performance of official duties, and not covered by any other specific offense already listed in the Rules. Any prior rulings designating such acts as gross misconduct are deemed abandoned.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that this offense is a serious charge for which dismissal may be imposed. But since Guillen had already resigned, the Court imposed, in lieu of dismissal, a fine of 150,000 pesos, with forfeiture of benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, resignation does not render an administrative case moot; it is not a way out to evade administrative liability, and resignation pending investigation is indicative of guilt. Second, the failure of a respondent to answer the charges despite repeated directives constitutes a waiver of the right to defend and an implied admission of the allegations. Third, misconduct, whether simple or gross, must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties; where it does not, the offense is prejudicial conduct that gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service under Section 14, paragraph l of Rule 140. Fourth, where the respondent has already been separated from the service by resignation, the penalty in lieu of dismissal is forfeiture of benefits, except accrued leave credits, disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, and a fine of more than 100,000 pesos but not exceeding 200,000 pesos.

Disposition

The Court found Guillen guilty of prejudicial conduct that gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service, and in lieu of dismissal, imposed on her a fine of 150,000 pesos, forfeited all her benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetually disqualified her from reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Remember This

Memorize this line: misconduct, whether simple or gross, must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties; if it does not, the offense is prejudicial conduct that gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between gross misconduct and prejudicial conduct, and the rule that resignation does not extinguish administrative liability.