ANGELINE GASULAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ANECITA MARALIT, RESPONDENT.

In a letter-complaint dated February 26, 1990, complainant
Angeline Gasulas charged respondent Anecita Maralit, a stenographic reporter of
the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Branch 1, Surigao City with violation of
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5 dated October 4, 1988, prohibiting
officials and employees of the judiciary from
engaging in any private business, vocation or profession without the prior
approval of the court.

Judge Andres Enriquez of Branch 29 of the Regional Trial Court,
Surigao City was designated by this Court to investigate and report on the
matter. In his Report and
Recommendation dated January 4, 1994, he found respondent guilty as charged and
recommended that she be suspended from office for three months without pay.

I

Complainant charged that respondent and her husband Jose Maralit
had conducted a pyramiding business operation. She testified that sometime in September 1989, she was recruited by
respondent to be one of her solicitors. At that time, respondent was employed at the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, Branch 1, Surigao City, while complainant was working at the City
Fiscal’s Office.

In her comment dated July 14, 1992, respondent denied the charges
against her. She averred that, as a
wife, she merely helped her husband in the operation of his rice-dealership
business and sari-sari store during her free time. She claimed that this administrative complaint was filed in
retaliation to the estafa cases she filed against complainant and her witness,
Adelina Javier.

From the evidence presented during the investigation, it is clear
that, indeed, respondent was involved in the pyramiding business and was
engaged in transactions related thereto.

The evidence show that complainant turned over her solicitations
to respondent in her office at the trial court. She presented documents showing that respondent received the
solicited investments as evidenced by the latter’s signature appearing thereon. Javier corroborated the statements of the
complainant and testified that she was also recruited as a solicitor for
respondent’s pyramiding business. The
allegations in the complaint were substantiated with documentary evidence
containing the names of the investors, the amounts invested and the due dates,
with the signatures of respondent appearing thereon. The testimony of Javier confirmed that respondent engaged in
business and received the moneys solicited by her. Respondent even directed her to open a current account with a
bank, wherein all remittances would be made by depositing checks in favor of
respondent and her husband. On
cross-examination, respondent admitted having received the said amounts and
having affixed her signatures on the aforementioned documents.

The Investigating Judge observed that considering “the
enormous amount of money received by respondent and her husband, it would be
highly unbelievable for her to be involved or engaged in the operation of so
big and complicated a business, only during her free time and not during office
hours.”

Administrative Circular No. 5 provides:

“TO                         :            ALL OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE
JUDICIARY

SUBJECT              :            PROHIBITION TO WORK AS INSURANCE
AGENT

In line with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service
Rules, the Executive Department issued Memorandum Circular No. 17 dated
September 4, 1986 authorizing heads of government offices to grant their
employees permission to “engage directly in any private business, vocation
or profession xxx outside office hours.

However, in its En Banc resolution dated October 1, 1987, denying
the request of Atty. Froilan L. Valdez of the Office of Associate Justice
Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, to be commissioned as a Notary Public, the Court
expressed the view that the provisions of Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the
Executive Department are not applicable to officials or employees of the courts
considering the express prohibition in the Rules of Court and the nature of
their work which requires them to serve with the highest degree of efficiency
and responsibility, in order to maintain public confidence in the
Judiciary. The same policy was adopted
in Administrative Matter No. 88-6-002-SC, June 21, 1988, where the court denied
the request of Ms. Esther C. Rabanal, Technical Assistant II, Leave Section,
Office of the Administrative Services of this Court, to work as an insurance
agent after office hours including Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Indeed, the entire time of Judiciary
officials and employees must be devoted to government service to insure
efficient and speedy administrative of justice.

ACCORDING, all officials and employees of the Judiciary are hereby
enjoined from being commissioned as insurance agents or from engaging in any
such related activities, and, to immediately desist therefrom if presently
engaged thereat.”

Every officer or employee in the Judiciary is duty bound to obey
the orders and the processes of the Supreme Court (Pascual v. Duncan, 216 SCRA
786 [1992]).

This court cannot tolerate the wrongdoings of its employees which
may jeopardize public faith and confidence in the judiciary.

WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent GUILTY of violation
of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5 dated October 4, 1988. She is SUSPENDED from office for SIX (6)
MONTHS WITHOUT PAY. Said suspension cannot
be charged against respondent’s accumulated leave credits.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., (Chairman), on
official leave.