The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel stresses that employees of the Judiciary serve as sentinels of justice and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and the people's confidence in it. No other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an employee than in the Judiciary.[12] Clerks of Court, in particular, are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts. They must show competence, honesty and probity, having been charged with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings.[13]
In Rivara's Compound Homeowners' Association v. Cervantes,[14] We emphasized the need for circumspect and proper behavior on the part of the court employees. Government officials and employees, more specifically those employed in the Judiciary, are bound by the highest standards of propriety and decorum to maintain the people's respect and faith in the Judiciary. Any transgression or deviation from the established norm of conduct, work related or not, amounts to a misconduct.[15] The image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat. Court employees are enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency in their professional and private conduct in order to preserve the good name and integrity of the court of justice.[16]
This exacting standard applies not only to the court employee's norm of conduct pertaining to the discharge of his official duties, but also to his personal dealings, which must be within the parameters of morality, propriety, and decency. As Clerk of Court II, respondent’s act of executing an Affidavit of Relinquishment, dated October 3, 1997, which stated that Candido Lauria, who earlier died on December 13, 1974, personally appeared before the Deputy Public Land Inspector of the Bureau of Lands in Ilagan, Isabela and relinquished his rights, in favor of respondent, as owner-claimant of Lot No. 4213 Cad-389-D, was a willful perversion of the truth that greatly prejudiced the rights and interests of the heirs of the deceased as the rightful claimants. To compound the defraudation, respondent presented the said affidavit to the Bureau of Lands in support of his application for free patent over the subject parcel of land that eventually led to the issuance of OCT No. P-72874 in his name and, later, three other titles, also under his name. Although the execution of the document was done in his personal capacity, and not in any way related to his duties as Clerk of Court II, being a court personnel, the act of defraudation he perpetrated, which caused damage and prejudice of the heirs of the deceased, amounted to grave misconduct and clearly degraded the integrity of the Judiciary as a respectable institution. His reprehensible act should be sanctioned, and he should be purged from the Judiciary.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer; and the misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, such as willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.[17] Respondent's defense that he already reconveyed the subject lot to the heirs of Candido Lauria, per TCT No. 288745, did not operate as an extenuating circumstance so as to exculpate him from administrative liability, nor would it be considered a mitigating circumstance that may lower the penalty to be imposed upon him. On the contrary, it even bolstered his commission of defraudation against the heirs of the deceased. In fact, the present administrative case can proceed independently of the criminal case, and the restitution of the property subject of the case, through a Deed of Reconveyance, would not operate to extinguish his administrative liability. Besides, he was compelled to effect the return of the property to the heirs only after the RTC, in its Decision dated August 5, 2003, categorically ordered him to execute the necessary deed to reconvey the properties subject of the suit to the legal heirs of the deceased.
Moreover, respondent cannot find solace under the cloak that he was not inspired by any improper motive and that he did not obtain any material benefit. Prudence dictates that, at the outset, he should not have caused the preparation of the Affidavit of Relinquishment and should have refrained himself from getting involved in the family affairs of the complainant. He employed undue advantage upon the heirs of the deceased on the pretext that he would help facilitate the processing of the titles. He ought to know that his act, although a private transaction, constitutes the crime of estafa, which amounts to grave misconduct and dishonesty, and tarnishes the integrity and dignity of the Judiciary.
The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with the Judiciary, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. And the Court will not hesitate to impose the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the service, for it has never and will never condone any conduct that would tend to diminish the faith of the people in the justice system.[18] For transgressing the benchmark of propriety and uprightness due to his grave misconduct, respondent's dismissal from the service becomes inevitable, pursuant to Section 52, A(3), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.[19]
However, since respondent compulsorily retired on September 28, 2010, after reaching the age of 65, the penalty of dismissal can no longer be imposed upon him. This fact, however, does not render the case moot and academic. Retirement of a Judiciary personnel from service does not preclude the finding of any administrative liability to which one shall still be answerable. In Gallo v. Cordero,[20] We ruled that mere cessation from office (i.e., due to compulsory retirement at the age of 70) of therein respondent judge, during the pendency of his case, does not ipso facto divest the Court of its jurisdiction over the same nor preclude it from determining his administrative liability. Thus:
[T]he jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had ceased in office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications.... If innocent, respondent official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation.[21]
In certain cases where therein respondents were found guilty of grave misconduct, but the penalty of dismissal is no longer possible in view of their compulsory retirement, the Court nonetheless imposed the corresponding disciplinary measures and sanctions, to wit: ordered the forfeiture of all benefits that therein employee may be entitled, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government-owned and controlled corporations,[22]or imposed a fine of P40,000.00 to be deducted from the retirement benefits of therein judge.[23] In another case, therein Human Rights Resource Management Officer II was found guilty of misconduct and the Court meted upon her a fine in an amount equivalent to six (6) months salary to be deducted from whatever leave and retirement benefits or privileges she may be entitled thereto.[24]
In the present case, the RTC, Branch 16, Ilagan, Isabela, as affirmed by the CA, found respondent guilty of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document. However, the trial court ruled that there was no evidence that, in perpetrating the crime of estafa, respondent took advantage of his position, as Clerk of Court II, in order to gain leverage over complainant and the other heirs of the deceased, as his offense was not in any way related to the discharge of his official duties. Moreover, respondent’s cessation from the service (due to his compulsory retirement), coupled with his 25 years and 25 days of continuous service[25] in the Judiciary without any previous derogatory record, warrant a penalty commensurate to the offense sought to be sanctioned. Considering that respondent ceases to be an employee of the Judiciary, the continuing tarnish on the image of the Judiciary sought to be curbed no longer exists. Hence, We find it appropriate to impose upon respondent the lesser penalty of fine in the amount of forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00), to be deducted from the retirement benefits or privileges he may be entitled to receive from the government, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
