actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
3.
3. Grounds for discipliGrounds for disciplinary action over appellate nary action over appellate and trial jand trial judgesudges 4.
4. Sanctions: fines, suspensiSanctions: fines, suspension, dismissal from on, dismissal from office, forfeiture of benefitoffice, forfeiture of benefits and disbarments and disbarment
Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Daniel R. Liangco
Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Daniel R. Liangco
(A.C. No.5355, December 11, (A.C. No.5355, December 11, 20112011
). ).
A trial court judge was dismissed from service for gross misconduct and gross ignorance A trial court judge was dismissed from service for gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. He allowed a local government unit to take possession and awarded ownership of a of the law. He allowed a local government unit to take possession and awarded ownership of a private prprivate property wioperty without any ethout any expropriatxpropriation proceion proceedings havedings having been fing been filed by the giled by the governmeovernment. Asnt. As a defense, the judge said that what he rendered was not a decision but only an opinion. After his a defense, the judge said that what he rendered was not a decision but only an opinion. After his dismissal, the Court initiated disbarment proceedings against him before the IBP. The IBP dismissal, the Court initiated disbarment proceedings against him before the IBP. The IBP recommended his disbarment which the Court affirmed.
recommended his disbarment which the Court affirmed.
VI. Administrative Aspects over Court Matters, Responsibilities and Discipline of Court VI. Administrative Aspects over Court Matters, Responsibilities and Discipline of Court Personnel
Personnel
A. Powers and Duties of Courts and
A. Powers and Duties of Courts and Judicial Officers (Rule 135)Judicial Officers (Rule 135)
B. Court Records and General Duties of Clerks and Stenographer (Rule 136) B. Court Records and General Duties of Clerks and Stenographer (Rule 136) C. Legal Fees (Rule 141):
C. Legal Fees (Rule 141): Manner of payment: legal tender; priManner of payment: legal tender; principles of Negotiablenciples of Negotiable Instruments Law will apply; fees in lien; and persons authorized to co
Instruments Law will apply; fees in lien; and persons authorized to collect legal feesllect legal fees D. Costs: Recovery of costs (Rule 142): a) Prevailing p
D. Costs: Recovery of costs (Rule 142): a) Prevailing party; b) Dismissed appeal or actionarty; b) Dismissed appeal or action c)
c) Frivolous Frivolous appeal; appeal; d) d) False False allegations; allegations; and and e) e) Non-appearance of Non-appearance of witnesswitness Survey of Recent Jurisprudence involving employees of the judiciary:
Survey of Recent Jurisprudence involving employees of the judiciary:
Executive Judge Ma. Ofelia S. Contreras-Soriano v. Clerk III Liza D. Salamanca, Executive Judge Ma. Ofelia S. Contreras-Soriano v. Clerk III Liza D. Salamanca, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 55, Malabon City
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 55, Malabon City
, , A.M. No. P-13 A.M. No. P-13-3119. Fe-3119. February 10, 2bruary 10, 2014014..The Executive Judge filed an administrative case against respondent for The Executive Judge filed an administrative case against respondent for
unauthorized/unexplained absences and other infractions: (1) failure to account for and turn unauthorized/unexplained absences and other infractions: (1) failure to account for and turn over the partial settlement amount of a civil obligation; and (2) failure to account for and turn over the partial settlement amount of a civil obligation; and (2) failure to account for and turn over the payment for legal fees she received in a case. The Court held that the acts of Salamanca over the payment for legal fees she received in a case. The Court held that the acts of Salamanca constitute dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
constitute dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Dishone
Dishonesty is definsty is defined as dispoed as dispositions to lsitions to lie, cheat, decie, cheat, deceive, or deeive, or defraud. It impfraud. It implieslies
untrustworthiness, lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle on the part untrustworthiness, lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle on the part of the individual who failed to exercise fairness and straightforwardness in his or her dealings.
of the individual who failed to exercise fairness and straightforwardness in his or her dealings.
Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service, on the other hand, pertains to any conduct Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service, on the other hand, pertains to any conduct that is detrimental or derogatory or naturally or probably bringing about a wrong result; it that is detrimental or derogatory or naturally or probably bringing about a wrong result; it refers to acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish – or tend refers to acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish – or tend to diminish – the people’s faith in the Judiciary.
to diminish – the people’s faith in the Judiciary.
De Castro, J.
De Castro, J. Angelito R. Marquez, et al. v. Judge Venancio M. Ovejera, etc., et al. Angelito R. Marquez, et al. v. Judge Venancio M. Ovejera, etc., et al.
,, A.M. No.A.M. No.P-11-2903, February 5, 2014
P-11-2903, February 5, 2014.. In finding t In finding the sheriff he sheriff guilty, the Cguilty, the Court cited ourt cited Section 8 of Section 8 of RA 6713RA 6713 which requires all public officials and employees to accomplish and submit declarations under which requires all public officials and employees to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of their assets and liabilities. The requirement of SALN submission is aimed at curtailing oath of their assets and liabilities. The requirement of SALN submission is aimed at curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption, as well as at maintaining a standard of and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption, as well as at maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. With such disclosure, the public would, to a reasonable extent, be honesty in the public service. With such disclosure, the public would, to a reasonable extent, be able to monitor the affluence of public officials, and, in such manner, provides a check and able to monitor the affluence of public officials, and, in such manner, provides a check and balance mechanism to verify their undisclosed properties and/or sources of income. S.C. held balance mechanism to verify their undisclosed properties and/or sources of income. S.C. held that based on Section 8 of RA 6713, “all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in that based on Section 8 of RA 6713, “all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like”, should be declared by the public official in his or her SALN.
banks, stocks, bonds, and the like”, should be declared by the public official in his or her SALN.
In this case
In this case, however, however, it was esta, it was established thblished that she only dat she only declared teclared the originahe original amount of l amount of her timeher time deposits in her SALN for the years 2004 and 2005, and did not disclose the interests which had deposits in her SALN for the years 2004 and 2005, and did not disclose the interests which had eventually accrued on the same.
eventually accrued on the same.
Veronica F. Galindez v. Zosima Susbilla-De Vera
Veronica F. Galindez v. Zosima Susbilla-De Vera
, , A.M. No. P-13 A.M. No. P-13-3126, Feb-3126, February 4, 201ruary 4, 20144..
TheThe Court found respondent guilty of grave misconduct Vera for soliciting money to supposedly Court found respondent guilty of grave misconduct Vera for soliciting money to supposedly facilitatfacilitate a legal proe a legal proceeding iceeding in court. She n court. She was dismiswas dismissed from sesed from service for vrvice for violating Seiolating Section 2,ction 2, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel has enjoined all court personnel from Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel has enjoined all court personnel from soliciting or accepting any gift, favor or benefit based on any or explicit understanding that such soliciting or accepting any gift, favor or benefit based on any or explicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions.
gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions.
The Court further said that to deserve the trust and confidence of the people, Susbilla-De Vera The Court further said that to deserve the trust and confidence of the people, Susbilla-De Vera was expected to have her dealings with the public to be always sincere and above board. She was expected to have her dealings with the public to be always sincere and above board. She should not lead others to believe that despite her status as a minor court employee she had the should not lead others to believe that despite her status as a minor court employee she had the capacity to influence the outcomes of judicial matters. Her acts did not live up to the
capacity to influence the outcomes of judicial matters. Her acts did not live up to the
expectation, for the records unquestionably showed how she had deliberately and fraudulently expectation, for the records unquestionably showed how she had deliberately and fraudulently misrepresented her ability to assist the complainant in the adoption of her niece and nephew.
misrepresented her ability to assist the complainant in the adoption of her niece and nephew.
Concerned Citizen v. Nonita v. Catena,
Concerned Citizen v. Nonita v. Catena, Court Stenographer III, RTC, Br. 50, Puerto Princesa, Court Stenographer III, RTC, Br. 50, Puerto Princesa, Palawan,
Palawan,
A.M. OCA IP A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-13I No. 02-1321-P, July 121-P, July 16, 2013.Res6, 2013.Respondent stepondent stenographnographer was diser was dismissedmissed from servfrom service for groice for gross dishonesss dishonesty in connety in connection witction with her Civil Sh her Civil Service eliervice eligibility whgibility where she waere she wass accused of causing another person to take the Civil Service Eligibility Examination in her stead.
accused of causing another person to take the Civil Service Eligibility Examination in her stead.
Before th
Before the Decision e Decision was imposwas imposed, howeved, however, responder, respondent resignent resigned but the Ced but the Court said ourt said that despitthat despitee this, it did not lose jurisdiction over the complaint and that it did not warrant the dismissal of the this, it did not lose jurisdiction over the complaint and that it did not warrant the dismissal of the same. The Court emphasized that cessation from office by virtue of her intervening resignation same. The Court emphasized that cessation from office by virtue of her intervening resignation did not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint against her, for the act complained did not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint against her, for the act complained of had been committed when she was still in the service. Nor did such cessation from office
of had been committed when she was still in the service. Nor did such cessation from office render the administrative case moot and academic. Otherwise, exacting responsibility for render the administrative case moot and academic. Otherwise, exacting responsibility for administrative liabilities incurred would be easily avoided or evaded. The Court therefore also administrative liabilities incurred would be easily avoided or evaded. The Court therefore also ordered her eligibility to be cancelled, her retirement benefits to be forfeited, and her
ordered her eligibility to be cancelled, her retirement benefits to be forfeited, and her
disqualification from re-employment in the government service to be perpetual. Her intervening disqualification from re-employment in the government service to be perpetual. Her intervening resignation necessarily means that the penalty of dismissal could no longer be implemented resignation necessarily means that the penalty of dismissal could no longer be implemented against her. Instead, fine is imposed, the determination of the amount of which is subject to the against her. Instead, fine is imposed, the determination of the amount of which is subject to the sound discretion of the Court.
sound discretion of the Court.
Office of the Court Administrator v. Noel R. Ong, Deputy
Office of the Court Administrator v. Noel R. Ong, Deputy Sheriff, Br. 49, et al., Sheriff, Br. 49, et al.,
A.M. No. P- A.M. No. P-09-2690. .” The Court held that respondents” acts of using the levied car for personal errands 09-2690. .” The Court held that respondents” acts of using the levied car for personal errands and losing it while under their safekeeping constitute grave misconduct and gross neglect of and losing it while under their safekeeping constitute grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty. The Court said misconduct is “a transgression of some established and definite rule of duty. The Court said misconduct is “a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character,improper or wrong behavior.” A misconduct is “grave” or gross” if it is “out of all measure;
improper or wrong behavior.” A misconduct is “grave” or gross” if it is “out of all measure;
beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful” or “such conduct as is not to be excused. Such flagrant beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful” or “such conduct as is not to be excused. Such flagrant and shameful acts and should not be countenanced. Respondents’ acts warrant the penalty of and shameful acts and should not be countenanced. Respondents’ acts warrant the penalty of
dismissal as provided in Rule 10, Section 46 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the dismissal as provided in Rule 10, Section 46 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. As for respondent Buencamino, his death is not a ground for the dismissal of the Civil Service. As for respondent Buencamino, his death is not a ground for the dismissal of the Complaint against him. Respondent Buencamino’s acts take away the public’s faith in the Complaint against him. Respondent Buencamino’s acts take away the public’s faith in the judiciary
judiciary, and these a, and these acts should cts should be sanctiobe sanctioned despined despite his deatte his death.h.
Sheriffs are reminded that they are “repositories of public trust and are under obligation to Sheriffs are reminded that they are “repositories of public trust and are under obligation to perform t
perform the duties ohe duties of their officf their office honestlye honestly, faithfully, faithfully, and to the b, and to the best of theiest of their abilities.” r abilities.” BeingBeing
“frontline officials of the justice system,” sheriffs and deputy sheriffs “must always strive to
“frontline officials of the justice system,” sheriffs and deputy sheriffs “must always strive to maintain public trust in the performance of their duties.”
maintain public trust in the performance of their duties.”
Development Bank of the Philippines, etc. Vs. Damvin V. Famero, Sheriff IV, RTC, Br. 43, Development Bank of the Philippines, etc. Vs. Damvin V. Famero, Sheriff IV, RTC, Br. 43, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, A.M. No.
Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, A.M. No. P P..
___________: For the respondent’s lapses in the___________: For the respondent’s lapses in the proceduprocedures in the imres in the implementplementation of the ation of the writ of execwrit of execution, he wution, he was found guas found guilty of similty of simple neglecple neglectt of duty, defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to the task expected of him. Under of duty, defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to the task expected of him. Under Section 52(B)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple
Section 52(B)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave . Section 53 of the same Rules allows the disciplining authority to neglect of duty is a less grave . Section 53 of the same Rules allows the disciplining authority to consider mitigating circumstances in favor of the respondent. The court considered his length of consider mitigating circumstances in favor of the respondent. The court considered his length of service in the Judiciary, acknowledgment of infractions, remorse and other family
service in the Judiciary, acknowledgment of infractions, remorse and other family
circumstances, among others, in determining the proper penalty. He was also found to be circumstances, among others, in determining the proper penalty. He was also found to be entitled to the following mitigating circumstances: (1) his more than 24 years of service in the entitled to the following mitigating circumstances: (1) his more than 24 years of service in the Judiciar
Judiciary; (2) a cleay; (2) a clear record otr record other than fher than for the presor the present infracent infraction which ition which is his first os his first offense, (3)ffense, (3) the resistance of the informal settlers to leave the property; (4) fear for his life; and (5) his the resistance of the informal settlers to leave the property; (4) fear for his life; and (5) his well-grounded recognition that he could not undertake any demolition without the appropriate court grounded recognition that he could not undertake any demolition without the appropriate court order. After considering the attendant facts and the mitigating circumstances, the court also order. After considering the attendant facts and the mitigating circumstances, the court also considered that the efficiency of court operations may ensue if the respondent’s work were to be considered that the efficiency of court operations may ensue if the respondent’s work were to be left unattended by reason of his suspension. Thus, he was imposed the penalty of fine instead of left unattended by reason of his suspension. Thus, he was imposed the penalty of fine instead of suspension from service.
suspension from service.
Anacleto O. Villahermosa, Sr., et al. v. Victor Sacia, Executive Assistant IV and Efr Anacleto O. Villahermosa, Sr., et al. v. Victor Sacia, Executive Assistant IV and Efren R. en R.
Rivamonte
Rivamonte
, etc. , etc.,,
A.M. No. CA- A.M. No. CA-14-28-P, Fe14-28-P, February 11bruary 11, 2014, 2014. The Court held that the act of. The Court held that the act of soliciting or receiving money from litigants constitutes grave misconduct. The S.C. reiterated soliciting or receiving money from litigants constitutes grave misconduct. The S.C. reiterated thatthat
The Code of Conduct for Cou The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel rt Personnel
requires that court personnel avoid conflicts of requires that court personnel avoid conflicts of interest in performing official duties. It mandates that court personnel should not receive tips or interest in performing official duties. It mandates that court personnel should not receive tips or other remunerations for assisting or attending to parties engaged in transactions or involved in other remunerations for assisting or attending to parties engaged in transactions or involved in actions or proceedings with the judiciary. Further, court personnel cannot take advantage of the actions or proceedings with the judiciary. Further, court personnel cannot take advantage of the vulnerability of party–litigants. In this case, respondents were found guilty of grave misconductthat