A.M. No. MTJ-16-1870
June 6, 2017
FACTS:
Respondent Roque was convicted for the said crime by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City, Branch 1, Davao del Norte on June 1, 2005. He was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate with six months and twenty days of prision correccional, as maximum penalty, including all the accessory penalties provided by law. Respondent Roque immediately applied for probation, which was granted by the RTC on July 25, 2005. Upon the motion of Probation and Parole Officer II, respondent Roque was discharged from his probation July 18, 2008. Respondent Roque applied for the position of Utility Worker I in the court of respondent Judge Samson. However, in his Personal Data Sheet dated June 12, 2008, respondent did not disclosed the fact that he had been formally charged and convicted of an offense.
On July 11, 2013, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received an anonymous letter-complaint charging respondent Judge Divina T. Samson with misconduct for hiring co-respondent Francisco M. Roque, Jr. as Utility Worker I in her court despite knowing that respondent Roque was convicted for illegal possession of explosives, as she was the public prosecutor who handled the case, and for knowingly abetting the concealment of such fact, which led to Roque's appointment in the Judiciary. The complaint also charged respondent Roque with dishonesty and falsification for the untruthful entries he made in his Personal Data Sheet, particularly
that he had not been formally charged and convicted of an offense.
On February 15, 2016, the OCA found respondents guilty. Hence, the present petition.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not respondent Roque is liable for dishonesty and falsification for failing to disclose in his Personal Data Sheet that he was charged of a criminal offense and convicted of the crime charged.
(2) Whether or not respondent Judge Samson is liable for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct for her complicity in the appointment of respondent Roque to the judiciary despite knowing that he was not yet discharged from probation when he applied for the position of utility worker I in her court.
HELD:
I.
Yes. Respondent Roque is liable for dishonesty and falsification for failing to disclose in his Personal Data Sheet that he was charged of a criminal offense and convicted of the crime charged.
Under Section 17 of the Probation Law, the confidentiality of records of a probationer refers to the investigation report and supervision history of a probationer taken under the said law, which records shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the Probation Administration or the court concerned. However, the Probation Administration and the court concerned have the discretion to allow disclosure of the confidential records to specific persons and the government office/agency stated in the Probation Law. The confidentiality of the said records is different from respondent Roque' s obligation to answer truthfully the questions in his Personal Data Sheet, as the accomplishment of the Personal Data Sheet is a requirement under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations in connection with employment in the government. The Personal Data Sheet is the repository of all information about any government employee and official regarding his personal background, qualification, and eligibility. Respondent Roque, therefore, had the obligation to reveal the fact that he had been formally charged and convicted of a criminal offense to enable the Selection and Promotion Board for Lower Courts to correctly determine his qualification for the position applied for. The Office of the Court Administrator aptly stated that by respondent Roque' s false statement in his Personal Data Sheet making it appear that he had a spotless record, he gained unwarranted advantage over other qualified individuals, especially that he was also recommended by respondent Judge Samson for the position.
The falsification in respondent Roque' s Personal Data Sheet is a dishonest act related to his employment. Dishonesty is the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive or betray and an intention to violate the truth.
II.
Yes. Respondent Judge Samson is liable for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct for her complicity in the appointment of respondent Roque to the judiciary despite knowing that he was not yet discharged from probation when he applied for the position of utility worker I in her court.
Respondent Judge Samson, she contends that respondent Roque applied for the position of Utility Worker in her court after his discharge from probation, but the records show that respondent Roque accomplished his Personal Data Sheet on June 12, 2008 or more than a month before he was discharged from probation on July 18, 2008. When respondent Roque• applied for the position of Utility Worker I in her court, respondent Judge Samson knew that he was not yet discharged from probation and yet she recommended respondent Roque for the position in a recommendation letter dated June 3, 2008, which forms part of the employment record of respondent Roque in the Court. As the Presiding Judge of the Court, respondent Judge Samson should have been circumspect and waited for the final discharge of respondent Roque before she entertained his application and gave him her favorable recommendation, as it is only upon the final discharge of respondent Roque from probation that his case is deemed terminated and all his civil rights lost or suspended are restored. Her act violates Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, thus:
CANON 2 - A JUDGE SHOULD A VOID IMPROPRIETY AND
APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES
Rule 2.01 --A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. xx xx
Rule 2.03 - A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of
judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
Hence, the OCA decision is hereby affirmed but modifies the recommended penalties to be imposed.
No comments:
Post a Comment