Case involvs Admin Complaint against respondent Flores who is an Interpreter at RTC Davao for taking over a market stall awarded to a different person. The Court dismissed the complaint but it also required her to explain: 1. Why despite assuming her duties as an interpreter in May 1991, a certification shows she worked for the Municipal Assessor as Assesment Clerk I up until June 1991; 2. Why she did not report her business in interest in a market stall in her SALN, Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and Identification of Relatives in 1991-1994; 3. Why she had not divested her interest from said business within 60 days from assumption of office; and 4. Why she indicated in her DTRs for August and September that she worked on certain days when her Contract of Lease for the market stall clearly states she has to personally conduct her business and be present at the stall otherwise the same would be cancelled; Respondent gave excuses for each question but the OCA found her guilty of dishonesty and failure to report her business interest and recommended the penalty of dismissal.
Issue: W/N respondent should be dismissed. Yes.
Ratio: Respondent admitted she had collected her salary from the Municipality of Panabo for May 16-31, 1991 when she was already working at the RTC. - She knew she was no longer entitled to the salary but took it just the same; - She returned the amount only after the Court Resolution in 1996 or 5 years later; - Her overriding need for money, aggravated by alleged delay in processing of her initial salary from the Court does not justify receipt of a salary not due her; - Court sympathizes with her plight of being the breadwinner of her family but is not an acceptable excuse for her misconduct; - If poverty and pressing financial need could justify stealing, the government would have been bankrupt long ago; a public servant should never expect to become wealthy in government. - She should have returned the salary as soon as she obtained it;
Although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual than in the judiciary; - . Personnel in the judiciary should conduct themselves in such a manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion, and free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties but also in their everyday life; - Respondent's malfeasance is a clear contravention of the constitutional dictum that the State shall "maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption; - Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO No. 292 known as the "Administrative Code of 1987" and other pertinent Civil Service Laws, the penalty for dishonesty is dismissal, even for the first offense;
Court notes the contradiction between the two certifications; although specifically asked to explain the contradiction, respondent could only state that the certification of the treasurer is inaccurate because she assumed her position as Assessment Clerk on Jan 25, 1990, not on Feb 1, 1990 - SC: respondent failed to explain the gravamen of inquiry, that she was still connected with the Municipal Government of Panabo on June 3, 1991, notwithstanding her assumption of her post in RTC as early as May 16, 1991;
Respondent guilty of failure to perform her legal obligation to disclose her business interests - OCA found she was receiving rental payments from one Luay for the use of the market stall; - This should have been reported in her SALN, failure to do so exposes her to administrative sanction; - Section 8, RA 6713 provides that t is the "obligation" of an employee to submit a sworn statement, as the "public has a right to know" the employee's assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests; violation is sufficient cause for removal or dismissal;
Respondents claim that the contract of lease was never implemented because it became subject of a civil case fails to convince the court; - As early as 1991, she was receiving the rentals; she even admitted this; - In a court memo dated 1995, non-disclosure of business interest is punishable by imprisonment, fine or both;
Respondent not administratively liable for divesting herself of said interest - The requirement for public officers, in general, to divest themselves of business interests upon assumption of a public office is prompted by the need to avoid conflict of interests; - If no showing of conflict of interest, divestment unnecessary; - A court, generally, is not engaged in the regulation of a public market, nor does it concern itself the activities thereof.
Respondent dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits with prejudice to re-employment in the government.
Dela Cruz v COA 2001 | Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. Petitioners assail the decision of COA which denied their appeal from the Notice of Disallowance of an NHA Resident Auditor of representation allowances and per diems. Petitioners (20 people) were members of the Board of Directors of NHA from 1991 to 1996. In 1997, COA issued a memorandum directing heads/auditors of national government agencies and GOCCs which paid any form of additional compensation to cabinet secretaries, their deputies and assistants, or their representatives which is in violation of the rule on multiple positions to: a. Immediately cause the disallowance of such additional compensation; and b. Effect the refund of the same upon finality of the SC case of Civil Liberties Union v Exec Sec; The above decision declared EO 284 unconstitutional insofar as it allows Cabinet members, their deputies and assistants to hold other offices, in addition to their offices, and to receive compensation therefor. The Notice of Disallowance I this case disallowed the payment of representation allowance and per diems of Cabinet members who were the ex-officio members of the NHA Board of Directors and/or their respective alternates who actually received payments. Total disallowed is 276k pesos. Petitioners appealed the NoD to COA based on the ff grounds: 1. Only the members of Cabinet and their deputies or assistants are banned from multiple positions; it does not cover appointive officials with equivalent rank or lower than Assistant Authority; 2. NHA Directors are not Secretaries, Undersecretaries or Assistant Secretaries and they occupy positions lower thant Assistant Secretary; COA denied appeal saying: 1. Petitioners sitting in NHA Board not sitting in their own right but as representatives of cabinet members; 2. An agent can never be larger than the principal.
Issue: W/N the representation allowances and per diems should be allowed. No.
Ratio: Under Section 7 of PD 757 (Law creating NHA) Cabinet members are to sit as NHA Board members. While petitioners are not among those officers, however, they are alternates of the said officers whose acts shall be considered the acts of their principals. - Section 13, VII of 1987 Constitution cited; - CLU v Exec Sec: SC ruled that the prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices under Section 13 must not be construed as applying to posts occupied by the Executive officials therein without additional compensation in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and required by the primary functions of said officials office; - Reason: these posts do not comprise any other office within the contemplation of the constitutional prohibition; - Ex officio means from office; by virtue of office; o It refers to an authority derived from official character merely, not expressly conferred upon the individual character, but rather annexed to the official position; o The ex-officio position being actually and in legal contemplation part of the principal office, it follows that the official concerned has no right to receive additional compensation for his services in the said position; the reason is that these services are already paid for and covered by the compensation attached to his principal office;
At case: - Since the Executive Department Secretaries, as ex-oficio members of the NHA Board, are prohibited from receiving extra (additional) compensation, whether it be in the form of a per diem or an honorarium or an allowance, or some other such euphemism," it follows that petitioners who sit as their alternates cannot likewise be entitled to receive such compensation; - A contrary rule would give petitioners a better right than their principals.
Dismissed.
Abeto v Garcesa 1995 | Davide, Jr., J. A complaint was filed against respondent for allegedly misrepresenting himself as a full-fledged lawyer and having acted as one of the authorized representatives of the complainant and his co-complainants in labour cases despite him being a court employee(stenographer). Respondent admitted he assisted complainant in labour cases but denied he misrepresented himself as a lawyer. He explained he frankly informed petitioner that he is only a court employee and he was only helping one Ronquillo (BP of Workders Amalgamated Union of the PH (WAUP) whose assistance was sought by petitioner and others. Respondent further alleges that the case arose out of ill-feeling and is design to maligh his name and reputation as a court employee. He manifests that if his motives in helping poor and downtrodden workers/employees of BISCOM Central would not be in consonance with Memo Circ 17 (1986) issued by the Exec Dept and is prohitibed by Admin Circ 5 issued by the Supreme Court, he will readily submit to the discretion of the SC.
Issue: W/N complaint be dismissed. Yes but Respondent is reprimanded.
Court agreed with recommendation of Deputy Court Admin Elapano that respondent be reprimanded. - Section 12 Rule XVIII of RCSR cited and SC memo circ 5; - Under the section 12, government employees prohibited from engaging in any private business, vocation of profession without permission from the Court; a proviso was emphasized which provided that the prohibition is absolute in the case of officers and employees whose duties and responsibilities require that their entire time be at the disposal of the Government; - Admin Circ 5 was also cited which provides that the entire time of Judiciary officials and employees must be devoted to government service to insure efficient and speedy administration of justice; the nature of their work requires them to serve with the highest degree of efficiency and responsibility in order to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary;
W/N respondent should be held liable for unauthorized practice of law. No. - There is no convincing evidence respondent represented himself as a lawyer; his appearance merely was in his capacity as one of the representatives of the complainants, not as a lawyer; - NLRC rules provided at that time that a non- lawyer may appear before NLRC or any Labor Arbiter if he represents himself or as a party to the case, represents an organization or its members or is a duly accredited member of a free legal aid staff of the DOLE or other accredited legal aid of office by the DoJ and IBP;
W/N respondent should be held liable under Memo Circular 17 declaring that the authority to grant permission to any official or employee to engage in outside activities shall be granted by the department or agency in accordance with Section 12, Rule XVIII of Revised Civil Service Rules. No. - Memo Circ 17 not applicable to officials or employees of the courts; - Admin Circ 5 (1988) provided that it is not applicable to officials or employees of the courts considering the express prohibition in the Rules of Court and the nature of their work which requires them to serve with the highest degree of efficiency and responsibility, in order to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary; - Prohibition is directed against moonlighting
For malfeasance in violation of Section 12, Rule XVIII of RCSR and rulings of Court, respondent is reprimanded.