AM P 07 2399; (June, 2008) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-07-2399. June 18, 2008. EDNA PALERO-TAN, complainant, vs. CIRIACO I. URDANETA, JR., UTILITY WORKER I, RTC, BRANCH 14, BAYBAY, LEYTE, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Edna Palero-Tan, a Court Stenographer III, alleged that respondent Ciriaco I. Urdaneta, Jr., a Utility Worker I in the same RTC branch, stole her ring and bracelet worth P15,000.00 from her office drawer. She asserted that respondent was the only person present when she last accessed the jewelry. After discovering the loss, an officemate informed her that respondent’s wife had found the jewelry in his coin purse, causing a marital quarrel. When confronted by the presiding judge, respondent initially confessed to finding the items on court premises but claimed he had discarded them.
In his defense, respondent denied theft. He claimed he found a plastic sachet containing the jewelry under his office table, presumed it belonged to a litigant, and kept it intending to return it. He stated he later threw the items away to end his wife’s suspicions of infidelity. He pleaded for leniency, citing his 27 years of government service and age.
ISSUE
Whether respondent is administratively liable for the loss of complainant’s jewelry.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of Grave Misconduct. The Court found his defense of innocent finder unworthy of belief. His actions were inconsistent with good faith. He failed to immediately report the found items to his superiors or officemates, even when complainant publicly announced her loss. He only admitted possession after his wife’s discovery caused a scandal. This concealment and his eventual disposal of the property demonstrated a dishonest intent to appropriate the items for himself, constituting willful wrongdoing.
The Court emphasized that court personnel must uphold the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Respondent’s act, committed within court premises, eroded public trust in the judiciary. While the investigating officer recommended a finding of “Conduct Unbecoming,” the Supreme Court characterized the act as the more serious offense of Grave Misconduct. Considering his length of service, his otherwise unblemished record, and his subsequent optional retirement, the Court imposed a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00), to be deducted from his withheld retirement benefits, as a tempered but appropriate penalty.