AM P 01 1520; (November, 2001) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-01-1520. November 21, 2001. MARILOU A. CABANATAN, complainant, vs. CRISOSTOMO T. MOLINA, respondent.
FACTS
Marilou A. Cabanatan, a Court Stenographer III, filed an administrative complaint against Crisostomo T. Molina, a Sheriff IV and Officer-in-Charge, for abuse of authority, grave misconduct, oppression, dishonesty, and violation of Civil Service Rules. The charges stemmed from an incident on December 21, 1999, where Molina, allegedly intoxicated during office hours, confronted and challenged Cabanatan to a fight using vulgar language after she borrowed the office attendance logbook. Cabanatan also alleged Molina withheld her salary checks and engaged in dishonest practices regarding his official travel claims by submitting certificates from a judge instead of from the Supreme Court.
Molina denied the allegations, claiming Cabanatan took the logbook without permission and was the one who shouted invectives. He asserted he did not order the withholding of her salary and justified his travels as necessary to bring documents to an acting presiding judge in Quezon City. The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Jose Rosales of the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Crisostomo T. Molina is administratively liable for the charges against him.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Molina guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed him from service. The Court adopted the findings of the investigating judge, which established that Molina participated in a drinking session inside the courtroom during office hours under the pretext of a Christmas celebration, leading to his intoxication and the subsequent confrontation with complainant. This act alone constituted grave misconduct, demonstrating a blatant disregard for the dignity and decorum required of court personnel.
The Court emphasized that the conduct of every court employee reflects on the judiciary’s integrity. Molina’s drunkenness and belligerent behavior during work hours, while holding a supervisory role as OIC, fell disgracefully short of the high standards of public service. His actions eroded public confidence in the administration of justice. The Court also noted his failure to properly log his attendance as a further violation of civil service rules. Given the gravity of the offense, which undermined judicial integrity and efficiency, the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and disqualification from reemployment in any government agency was imposed. This serves to preserve the judiciary’s sanctity by removing individuals who tarnish its reputation.