A.M. No. P-05-1974. April 06, 2005. Rodolfo T. Baquerfo, Complainant, vs. Gerry C. Sanchez, Legal Researcher II, Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Lianga, Surigao del Sur, Respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Rodolfo T. Baquerfo, a Court Stenographer III and Officer-in-Charge, filed an administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct against respondent Gerry C. Sanchez, a Legal Researcher II of the same court. The complaint alleged that on April 10, 2003, respondent sold two unserviceable desk fans (judiciary property) and one unserviceable electric stove (provincial government property) to a scrap iron buyer. The complaint was supported by affidavits from security guards and an investigation report. Respondent denied the accusations, claiming the items were disposed of as part of a municipal clean-up drive and that the complaint was a preemptive move by a group engaged in corrupt activities.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the case for formal investigation. The investigating judge found the testimony of a child witness, Ryan Jason Moseclar, who detailed how respondent instructed him and two other children to deliver the items to the buyer, to be credible and corroborated by the buyer and a security guard. Respondent was also criminally charged with theft before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Gerry C. Sanchez is administratively liable for Grave Misconduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of Grave Misconduct. The Court emphasized that all judiciary personnel must uphold the highest standards of honesty and integrity, as their conduct directly impacts public trust in the judicial system. The pilferage and sale of court property, even if deemed unserviceable, constitutes a serious act of dishonesty and grave misconduct. The investigating judge’s findings, which credited the consistent and corroborated testimonies of witnesses over respondent’s denials, were upheld. The Court ruled that administrative liability exists independently from any criminal proceeding and is determined by substantial evidence.
As a consequence, and considering the gravity of the offense which involves dishonesty and misappropriation of government property, the Supreme Court imposed the supreme penalty of dismissal. However, as respondent had already retired, the Court ordered the forfeiture of all his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetually disqualified him from re-employment in any government agency. This severe sanction serves to preserve the integrity of the judiciary and deter similar acts.