AM P 2316; (May, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. P-2316 May 16, 1983
Judge Alejandro C. Silapan, complainant, vs. Bernardo Alcala, Court Interpreter, Court of First Instance of Davao del Norte, Branch I, Tagum, Davao del Norte, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Bernardo Alcala, a Court Interpreter, informed Executive Judge Alejandro C. Silapan of his final decision to resign, citing low salary, and filed an application for terminal leave effective July 1, 1979. He even recommended a potential replacement. Relying on this, Judge Silapan favorably endorsed the application of Benedicta Hilario for the position. However, the Supreme Court’s Administrative Services Office, via telegrams, requested the forwarding of Alcala’s formal resignation letter and clearances for acceptance, which could not be located.
It was later discovered that Alcala had withdrawn his application for terminal leave without informing Judge Silapan. Despite being ordered to explain his prolonged absence and actions, Alcala reported for duty only to be told by the judge that a replacement had already been recommended. Alcala then absented himself again and failed to appear at the scheduled administrative investigation, despite being duly notified, choosing instead to await its outcome.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Bernardo Alcala is administratively liable for his actions.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is guilty of serious misconduct. The Supreme Court emphasized that public office is a public trust, demanding punctuality and strict observance of official duties. Alcala’s actuations constituted a willful disregard of this trust. His prolonged, unauthorized absence from July 1, 1979, onward disrupted court operations and prejudiced the administration of justice.
His conduct displayed dishonesty and insincerity. By declaring a final decision to resign, causing the judge to endorse a replacement, and then surreptitiously withdrawing his leave application, he placed the complainant judge in an embarrassing position before the Supreme Court and the applicant. This act made the court’s staffing subject to his personal financial ventures. Furthermore, his failure to appear at the investigation, despite notice, demonstrated arrogant defiance unbecoming of a court employee. Considering he was later allowed to return to service, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to three months’ salary.