The Court finds the respondents’ contentions without merit. Their concerted acts – of leading Atty. Capuchino and Valencia into the court sala, engaging them in conversation regarding the money deposited with Duque, taping their conversation without Capuchino’s & Valencia’s knowledge, and later using the taped conversation as basis of the complaint they filed against Duque – constitute misconduct.
The Court observes that there exists animosity among the judges and employees of the court. When the present case was referred to Judge Plata for investigation, he inhibited himself on the ground that the respondents had filed a complaint against him and that he had also filed a criminal case against all of them. The filing of the complaint against Duque was instigated by Taguba. Initially signed only by Taguba, he prevailed upon the other respondents to co-sign his letter addressed to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., which was later docketed as A.M. No. P-05-1958. He introduced as evidence in this complaint the tape recorded conversation. Although Duque was penalized for simple misconduct, the Court found that there “was no evidence that she was moved by evident bad faith, dishonesty or hatred”[27] in receiving Valencia’s money for safekeeping. We cannot say the same of Taguba’s actions in the animosity-ridden atmosphere apparently obtaining in the MTCC of Santiago City.
Making false accusations and sowing intrigues are acts unbecoming of a public servant. They run against the principles of public service envisioned by the 1987 Constitution and by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials & Employees (Republic Act No. 6713). These acts divert the attention of public employees and the courts from their more important tasks, and result in undue wastage of government resources; they cannot be tolerated if we are to demand the highest degree of excellence and professionalism among public employees, and if we are to preserve the integrity and dignity of our courts.[28]
Misconduct, on the other hand, is a transgression of some definite or established rule of action; more particularly, it is unlawful behavior by the public officer and refers as well to wrongful or improper behavior under applicable provisions of the Code of Ethics. The term “gross” connotes something “out of all measure; beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful such conduct as is not be excused.”[29] For administrative liability to attach, it must be established that the respondent was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or other similar motives.[30]
Clearly, substantial evidence exists in this case to hold Taguba guilty of gross misconduct punishable by dismissal from the service even for the first offense. Not only did he disregard the terms of the Anti-Wiretapping Act within court premises where the public should feel most secure about their personal liberties. He undertook the act to secure evidence against a co-employee; he obtained and used the taped conversation as basis for a complaint against Duque who was penalized for the deposit she had accepted. We cannot accept, under these circumstances, any claimed absence of bad faith after considering the devious method Taguba employed and the purpose that it served, however lofty Taguba thought his purpose had been.
Unfortunately, we can no longer impose the penalty of dismissal on Taguba because he has retired from the service on disability effective P25,000.00 from the defendant in a pending case with the promise that he would work for the defendant’s acquittal. In lieu of the dismissal that at that point we could no longer impose because of his previous retirement, the Court — “given the gravity of respondent Taguba’s offense” — ordered the forfeiture of Taguba’s disability retirement benefits. While we therefore find Taguba administratively liable in the present case, we have run out of administrative penalties to impose on him. Nothing, however, can stop us from holding and declaring him liable for the gross misconduct that he stands charged with.
For their participation in the illegal tape recording of the complainant and his client, the Court finds respondents Apolonio and Santiago guilty of simple misconduct. We so rule given the evidence that they merely followed the lead of Taguba. Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple misconduct is a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.[32]
Since the penalty of dismissal can no longer be imposed on respondent Taguba, we can only reiterate the directive in A.M. No. MTJ-08-1727[33] ordering the forfeiture of his remaining retirement benefits.
Respondent Maripi A. Apolonio has previously been found guilty of simple misconduct for gambling during office hours, together with respondents Taguba and Andres, in A.M. No. P-01-1517.[34] They were suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day. Since this is Maripi A. Apolonio’s second offense, the penalty of dismissal should be imposed. We opt, however, to merely order her SUSPENSION from the service for one (1) year effective immediately, in light of our recognition that her present act is different in nature from her first offense; the elements of perversity and impenitence that are considered in a repetition of the same offense are not necessarily present. Thus, we accord her the benefit of the doubt.
This is respondent Ana Gracia E. Santiago’s first offense; thus, the Court hereby imposes on her a lighter penalty and orders her SUSPENSION from the service for only six (6) months.
x x x."
