A.M. No. P-11-3000
"x x x.
We have repeatedly stressed that all officials and employees involved in the administration of justice, from judges to the lowest rank and file employees, bear the heavy responsibility of acting with strict propriety and decorum at all times in order to merit and maintain the public's respect for, and trust in, the Judiciary. Simply stated, all court personnel must conduct themselves in a manner exemplifying integrity, honesty and uprightness.[13]
In this case, the respondent's use of the letterhead of the court and of her official designation in the eight demand letters she prepared in 1993 hardly meets the foregoing standard. She took advantage of her office and position to advance the interests of private individuals, acting as “counsel” and collecting agent for the Saint Ignatius Loyola Credit Cooperative, Inc., Simeon C. Maamo, Jr., and Restituta Claridad. Despite her good intentions, she gave private individuals an unwarranted privilege at the expense of the name of the court.[14]
The respondent also administered oaths in documents not involving official business, in violation of Section 41,[15] as amended by Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6733,[16] and Section 242[17] of the Revised Administrative Code, in relation with Sections G,[18] M[19] and N,[20] Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court. Under these provisions, Clerks of Court are notaries public ex officio; they may notarize documents or administer oaths only when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions. Thus, in their ex-officio capacity, clerks of court should not take part in the execution of private documents bearing no relation at all to their official functions.[21] The respondent administered oaths in five affidavits and a document bearing no relation at all to her official functions.
We note that the respondent also violated PD No. 26. The franking privilege granted by PD No. 26 extended only to judges and referred to official communications and papers directly connected with the conduct of judicial proceedings which shall be transmitted in the mail free of charge.[22] The respondent was not a judge nor were the eight demand letters related to the discharge of judicial functions.
We cannot tolerate the respondent’s flagrant abuse and misuse of authority.
Misconduct in office refers to "any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. The term embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act."[23] In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule must be manifest.[24] Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an official or employee who unlawfully or wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another, contrary to the rights of others,[25] as in this case. By her repeated abuse and misuse of authority, the respondent exhibited an obvious lack of integrity expected of a court employee.
Grave misconduct is a serious offense punishable, under Section 52 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, with dismissal even for the first offense.
We are duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline errant employees and to weed out those who are found undesirable. The respondent failed to meet the strict standards set for a court employee; hence, she does not deserve to remain in the Judiciary.
x x x."
