A.M. No. P-16-3614
June 20, 2017
FACTS:
Before the Court is an anonymous Letter-Complaint, dated April 14, 2014, from the Concerned Lawyers of the Third District of Negros Oriental against Edselbert Garabato , Process Server; Erla Joie L. Roco ,Legal Researcher; and Glenn Namol , Court Interpreter, all of the Regional Trial Court Branch 63, Bayawan City, Negros Oriental, for grave misconduct due to case fixing, marriage solemnization fixing, improper solicitation, gross ignorance of the law, and conduct unbecoming of a court employee.
Respondents Garabato and Namol confederated and conspired in money making activities by asking money from litigants whose cases have just been dismissed or terminated in court by making it appear that these persons are obligated to the court personnel. Even though it is not necessary, they helped each other in making false pretenses thereby besmirching the integrity of the Supreme Court.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) after its investigation, made a report and recommendation and found Garabato guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for asking accused Bucad Pl0, 000.00 for the processing of his application for probation, out of which amount he accepted P3, 000.00 as initial payment. The OCA also found Namol and Garabato guilty of loafing in view of their admission that they had left the court's premises without the authority of their superior for the purpose of confronting Lasconia and Aragones regarding the allegations in the complaint. As to the liability of Roco, the OCA found her liable for simple neglect of duty for her failure to report the extortion incident involving Garabato and Bucad.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the OCA erred in finding the respondents guilty of the crime charged.
HELD:
No. The Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA.
The act of Garabato in demanding and receiving money from Bucad who had a pending case before the courts constituted serious misconduct in office. Section 2, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel specifically prohibits all court employees from 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.
With respect to Namol, the Court agrees with the findings of the OCA except on the penalty. As court employees, Namol and Garabato are reminded to observe the prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment thereof for public service if only to recompense the government and ultimately the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary. As such, they must, at all times, strictly observe official time to inspire public respect for the justice system.
Under Section 52 (A)(l7), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules or Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 991936, loafing or frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours is a grave offense punishable by suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. Under the circumstances, the penalty of one (1) month suspension is proper.
In the case of Roco, the finding of the OCA is well taken. She should be held liable for simple neglect of duty, which is defined as "the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference." Roco simply failed to exercise reasonable diligence and prudence when she failed to report the illegal activity of Garabato to her superior, the Branch Clerk of Court, or directly to the Judge.
As regards the inaction of Judge Jayme, Section 3, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides: Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware. Pursuant to said section, Judge Jayme should have caused the investigation of the unprofessional conduct committed by the court personnel under his supervision. He was well aware of the extortion activity being committed within the court and yet he failed to initiate any investigation for appropriate disciplinary action against the erring employee. Hence, Judge Jayme should be required to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for his failure to take the appropriate disciplinary measure against the erring court personnel.
Wherefore, the SC finds Edselbert Anthony Garabato, GUILTY of Grave Misconduct, and the Court orders his DISMISSAL from the service with FORFEITURE of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government including government-owned or controlled corporation. Respondent Glenn Namol, is found GUILTY of Loafing and is hereby REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty. Respondent Erla Joie L. Roco, is found GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty and is hereby REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
The counter complaint against Judge Ananson Jayme is hereby ordered re-docketed as a separate administrative matter. Judge Ananson Jayme, is DIRECTED to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for his inaction despite his knowledge of the illegal activity of respondent Edselbert Anthony Garabato.
No comments:
Post a Comment