"x x x.
Time and time again, we have stressed that the behavior of all employees and officials involved in the administration of justice, from judges to the most junior clerks, is circumscribed with a heavy responsibility. Their conduct must be guided by strict propriety and decorum at all times in order to merit and maintain the public’s respect for and trust in the judiciary. Needless to say, all court personnel must conduct themselves in a manner exemplifying integrity, honesty and uprightness.
In the instant case, records reveal that the conduct of respondent fell short of this standard. The acts described in the complaint, the testimony of complainant and the witness, and the Executive Judge's report clearly established that respondent is guilty of (a) discourtesy and disrespect to superiors; (b) solicitation of gifts; and (c) influence peddling in the litigants' applications for bail bond. Respondent’s acts constitute misconduct, which the Court will not tolerate.
Clearly, respondent's shouting at complainant within the court premises, reporting complainant to the police after she was reprimanded for her solicitation, and refusing to talk with complainant judge are not only acts of discourtesy and disrespect but likewise an unethical conduct sanctioned by Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
High-strung and belligerent behavior has no place in government service where the personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insolence. Such conduct is exacted from them so that they will earn and keep the public’s respect for and confidence in the judicial service. This standard is applied with respect to a court employee’s dealings not only with the public but also with his or her co-workers in the service. Conduct violative of this standard quickly and surely erodes respect for the courts.[13]
We are appalled that respondent apparently sees nothing wrong with asking or soliciting money from politicians. We have constantly reminded court employees that such act is highly improper conduct as all forms of solicitations and receipt of contributions, directly or indirectly, are prohibited. That is why, the Court provides the rule against any form of solicitations of gift or other pecuniary or material benefits or receipts of contributions for himself/herself from any person, whether or not a litigant or lawyer, to avoid any suspicion that the major purpose of the donor is to influence the court personnel in performing official duties.[14]
Soliciting is prohibited under The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. Section 2, Canon I thereof provides that "[c]ourt personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any explicit or implicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions," while Section 2 (e), Canon III states that "Court personnel shall not x x x solicit or accept any gift, loan, gratuity, discount, favor, hospitality or service under circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that a major purpose of the donor is to influence the court personnel in performing official duties."[15]
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. Thus, considering respondent's transgressions, i.e., disrespectful conduct, solicitation, and influence peddling of bail bonds, there is no question that respondent is guilty of grave misconduct.
As noted by the Court Administrator, this Court could no longer impose the penalty of dismissal from the service, because respondent has already resigned. We likewise agree that her resignation does not render the complaint against her moot. Resignation is not, and should not, be a convenient way or strategy to evade administrative liability when a court employee is facing administrative sanction.[16]
Under Section 52 (A) (2) of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, grave misconduct is classified as a grave offense meriting the penalty of dismissal from service. Thus, in the instant case, despite respondent's resignation, the Court deemed it proper to impose the corresponding disciplinary measures and sanctions, to wit: forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, if there are still any, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent EDITHA R. MANGAHAS,GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT. Accordingly, her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, are FORFEITED. She is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIEDfor reemployment in any branch of the government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations. This decision is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
x x x."
No comments:
Post a Comment