BUENSALIDA v. GABINETE

Atty. Raul Q. Buensalida vs. Marinel Gabinete
A.M. No. P-16-3593
February 21, 2017


Facts :

       This is a case involving a Court employee and was sound guilty of Grave Misconduct.
       Sometime on January 12, 2012, Percy Olarte, a postmaster I of the Phil Postin Luton , Davao Oriental discovered that the forty four mailed items containing Philhealth check refunds were missing.
       Immediately Postmaster Olarte made a letter report on January 18, 2012 to the Area Director of Philippine Postal Corp. Area 7, Eastern Mindanao.
       Thereafter, Atty. Raul Buensalida , Area Director ordered to conduct investigation. The investigating team identified the culprit of the said missing checks is MARINEL GABINETE, Utility Worker I at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Lupon-Banaybanay, Davao.
        An investigation Report dated September 12, 2012which leads to the identification of the said culprit with the following observations:

     An interview was conducted with Rose Gorospe, Manager, One Network Bank, Banaybanay Branch gave informations that some missing checks were presented for payments in 3A's store owned by a certain Marietta Conson who admittedly the checks were presented and negotiated by GABINETE for payments and the same were deposited in her account at One Network Bank.

      It was also verified that some other Philheath checks missing were deposited at One Network Bank, Luton Branch.

      Lucena Quezon, executed an affidavit that she personally presented and negotiated her Philhealth check at a cooperative, Lupon Branch after it was handed to her personally by GABINETE to her without the mailing envelope.

       In view of the results of the investigation, Buensalida sent a letter-complaint to the Presiding Judge of the MCTC dated September 19, 2012 requesting the filing of administrative/criminal cases against GABINETE.

      A complaint addressed to the Oca was received on October 11, 2012 and GABINETE was directed to file her comment on the said complaint.

      GABINETE in her comment on November 23, 2012 denied the charges against her claiming that Buensalida was merely using her to cover up the negligence of the Philpost employees.

       The matter was referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court under Judge Dayanghirang for full investigation report and recommendations.

         The case was heard by Judge Dayanghirang. Witnesses were presented and findings were made :

                 1. Postmaster Olarte and Gabinete are long time friends . By reason of this, Gabinete gain access to Olarte's Office and even helped her the later sorting letters.

                 2. Consonant and GABINETE were also friends and the latter frequently encased her checks in the store of the former. That when GABINETE  en cashed the PHIC checks , Consonant accepted it without much suspicions.

                3. On the other hand , and GAbinite are likewise friends and GABINETE personally handed to Quezon her PHIC check without question.

         Based on the findings, the Executive Judge issued the Investigation, Report and Recommendation that GABINETE was found to be Guilty of Misconduct.

         He recommends for the dismissal of the said Court employee,MARINEL GABINETE from service with forfeiture of all her benefits excluding accrued leave credits with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or government agency.

        One the basis of he recommendation of the Executive Judge, OCA on November 11,2015 made recommendation that the complainant was able to established the liability of the respondent and the circumstances which led that she committed the act.

       The Court ruled, finding the respondent MARINEL GABINETE  guilty of GRAVE MISCONDUCT meriting e penalty of DISMISSAL from service with forfeiture of retirement and other benefits, perpetual disqualification from re-employment.
     
        She is likewise ordered to refund the amount of checks plus interest.

         Further , the Court administrator referred the records to the Ombudsman for further action within its jurisdiction.


No comments:

Post a Comment