"x x x.
The rules do not provide a definition of, or enumeration of the acts constituting, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. In Ito v. De Vera,[5] the Court held that conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service refers to acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish - or tend to diminish - the people’s faith in the Judiciary.[6]
In Largo v. Court of Appeals,[7] it was stated that if an employee’s questioned conduct tarnished the image and integrity of his public office, he was liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The basis for his liability was Republic Act(R.A.) No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The Code, particularly its Section 4(c), commands that public officials and employees shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to public safety and public interest.[8]
In the case at bench, Gambito’s misrepresentation regarding the ownership and actual status of the tricycle which she sold to Filomena B. Consolacion (Consolacion)for ₱65,000.00 unquestionably undermined the people’s faith in the Judiciary. Gambito, a long time court stenographer, took advantage of her being a court employee and her friendship with Consolacion when she induced the latter to buy the tricycle and promised her that she would give her the documents proving ownership of the tricycle with the assurance that it was not encumbered.
For her misrepresentation and assurance, Consolacion trusted her and immediately gave her the amount of ₱65,000.00. Consolacion claimed that she was sincere in helping Gambito’s son and was disappointed when she failed to present the Original Certificate of Registration of the subject tricycle, despite several demands. What was even more painful for Consolacion was the fact that there was a chattel mortgage constituted on the tricycle and that it had already been foreclosed.
In her Comment,[9] Gambito explained that the money she received from Consolacion was used to pay her son’s placement fee. She gave the tricycle as security with the assurance that the money would be returned after two (2) months from her son’s arrival from abroad or upon the delivery of the certificate of registration. She was not able to return the money because her son became a victim of an illegal recruiter and she could not get the money back because the recruiter had passed away. What she did not disclose, however, was that the tricycle was already the subject of an earlier chattel mortgage in favor of PR Bank, Urdaneta City
Doubtless, Gambito’s unethical transactions and lack of forthrightness affected the Judiciary of which she was a part. As a court employee, she was expected to act in conformity with the strict standard required of all public officers and employees. In San Jose
The Court stresses that the conduct of every court personnel must be beyond reproach and free from suspicion that may cause to sully the image of the Judiciary. They must totally avoid any impression of impropriety, misdeed or misdemeanor not only in the performance of their official duties but also in conducting themselves outside or beyond the duties and functions of their office. Court personnel are enjoined to conduct themselves toward maintaining the prestige and integrity of the Judiciary for the very image of the latter is necessarily mirrored in their conduct, both official and otherwise. They must not forget that they are an integral part of that organ of the government sacredly tasked in dispensing justice. Their conduct and behavior, therefore, should not only be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility but at all times be defined by propriety and decorum, and above all else beyond any suspicion.[12]
Another point against Gambito was her transaction with Billamanca. She admitted in her letter-comment,[13] dated June 14, 2005, that she facilitated two (2) cases (ejectment case and petition for the issuance of lost title) for the amount of ₱15,000.00, which was supposed to be used for publication, filing fee and sheriff’s fee. She explained that the cases were not filed in court because Billamanca failed to give her the full amount of ₱15,000.00. The amount given was only ₱7,000.00, delivered in installments.
Gambito likewise confessed that she received in installments the amount of ₱9,000.00 from Lolita Erum (Erum), which was supposed to be for the bail of the latter’s husband who had nine (9) pending cases, and that she used the money to buy her medicines and the college books of her daughter.
Indeed, Gambito’s unauthorized transactions with Villamanca and Erum constitute conduct grossly prejudicial to the interest of the service. Under the Civil Service Law and its implementing rules, dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the service.[14]
Under Section 52(A)(11) of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dismissal is the penalty for improper solicitation for the first offense. Section 58(a) of the same Rule provides that the penalty of dismissal shall carry with it the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture or retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service, unless otherwise provided in the decision.[15]
Time and again, this Court has emphasized the heavy burden and responsibility of court personnel. They have been constantly reminded that any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of their official functions must be avoided. Thus, the Court does not hesitate to condemn and sanction such improper conduct, act or omission of those involved in the administration of justice that violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes or tends to diminish the faith of the public in the Judiciary.[16]
WHEREFORE, Lydia S. Gambito, Court Stenographer, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Binalonan-Laoac, Pangasinan, is hereby found GUILTY of three (3) counts of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and is hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any government office, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
x x x."
