LASPIÑAS v. BANZON

MAY N. LASPIÑAS v. JUDGE FELIPE G. BANZON

AM No. RTJ-17-2488

February 21, 2017

Facts:

In the letter-complaint dated November 21, 2008, Judge Banzon narrated that when he received complaints of misconduct and corruption at the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), most of which referred to May N. Laspiñas as compromising the court's integrity and image for monetary gains, he imposed new regulations to be observed at the OCC that included requiring the latter to vacate the area she occupied at the OCC and to transfer to the premises of the RTC, Br. 40; Laspiñas openly defied this directive and ridiculed the Office of the Executive Judge.

Further, he stated that at about 11:00 a.m. of November 4, 2008, while he was at the OCC, Laspiñas confronted him in an extremely abusive and hostile manner, menacingly pointing her forefinger at him, and hurling curses and invectives. He invited her to his sala to privately discuss the matter and to save the court from further embarrassment, which invitation she arrogantly refused; that even Judge Reynaldo M. Alon (Judge Alon) of RTC, Branch 40 tried to restrain her to no avail. He added that Laspiñas repeated the public ridicule in the afternoon of the same day as he was walking past Br. 40. Finally, he claimed that Laspiñas had gained notoriety in the judicial district as the person who could broker and fix problems in the court for a fee.

For her part, Laspiñas denied the allegations and asserted that she did not appropriate a space in the OCC, affording her primary and easy access to those who do business with the courts, but rather, she had been occupying this space since her appointment as Legal Researcher in 1988. She belied the reports of misconduct and corruption at the OCC and claimed that: Judge Banzon filed the administrative complaint as leverage for the administrative case they filed against him on October 10, 2008; and if the reports were true, he should have called her attention and directed her to explain or otherwise reported the matter to Judge Alon, her superior. She asserted that during the November 4, 2008 confrontation, it was Judge Banzon who angrily called her and hurled invectives, and that she did not publicly defy and ridicule Judge Banzon and the office he holds. Finally, she denied meeting Judge Banzon in the afternoon of said date

In the Memorandum dated August 5, 2016, the OCA recommended that: (1) Laspiñas be found guilty of Grave Misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and be dismissed from the service effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, without prejudice to her criminal liabilities.

The OCA reasoned that Laspiñas' acts of soliciting or receiving money from litigants - by preparing petitions for a fee — and withdrawing without authority the publication fees constitute Grave Misconduct that warrant her immediate dismissal from the service for violation of "Sec. 4, Canon I, and Sec. 2 (b) and (e) [Canon III] of A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC."

Issue:

Whether or not Laspiñas should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of?

Held:

The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of the OCA.

Misconduct has been defined as any unlawful conduct, on the part of the person concerned with the administration of justice, prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause. It implies wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct, not a mere error of judgment, motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose, although it does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent, and must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer's official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office.

Under our rules, misconduct maybe gross or simple. In order to differentiate the two, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must necessarily be manifest in the former. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists In the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his position or office to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. Sections 1 and 2 Canon I, and Section 2 (b) and (e). Canon 111 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel prohibits court personnel, from securing for themselves or for others, any benefit or advantage through their official position or in the performance of their functions. These sections respectively provide:

The Court finds May N. Laspiñas, Legal Researcher/Officer-In-Charge, of the Regional Trial Court of Silay City, Negros Occidental, Branch 40, GUILTY of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Accordingly, she is hereby DISMISSED from the service effective immediately.