G.R. No. A.M. No. P-93-953 August 25, 1994
Office of the Court Administrator, complainant, vs. Nancy G. Bucoy, Stenographic Reporter III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 142, Makati, Metro Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Nancy G. Bucoy, a Stenographic Reporter III of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 142, Makati, presided by Judge Salvador de Guzman, was administratively charged for gross misconduct. The charge stemmed from her participation in the procurement of an injunction bond for Civil Case No. 90-659, “Alexander Van Twest vs. Gloria Anacleto,” pending in the same court. After the court granted the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction conditioned upon the posting of a P1,000,000.00 bond, respondent volunteered to the plaintiff’s counsel that she had a friend at Domestic Insurance Co. who could issue the bond for a 3% premium (P30,000.00). Plaintiff Van Twest issued a P30,000.00 check payable to “cash,” which was transmitted to respondent. She encashed the check but failed to procure the bond, allegedly because Van Twest did not submit the required documents. Van Twest later secured a bond from another company through different counsel. Upon demand, respondent returned the balance of the money after deducting expenses. The check was later referred to the NBI by a concerned citizen alleging it was a bribe for Judge de Guzman, but the NBI found no evidence against the judge and recommended administrative charges against respondent. In her defense, respondent claimed she merely referred the counsel to the insurance company, encashed the check, and returned the balance after deducting expenses, including P15,065.00 allegedly given to a collaborating counsel, a P6,000.00 cancellation fee, P1,162.00 for transcript of stenographic notes, P1,273.00 for taxi fares and miscellaneous expenses, and returning P6,500.00 to Van Twest’s secretary. She also implied she expected to earn a commission from the transaction.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Nancy G. Bucoy committed gross misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting dismissal.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and is dismissed from the service. The Court found that respondent exceeded her official functions as a stenographic reporter by directly involving herself in the procurement of an injunction bond for a party-litigant, an act outside her duties that violated the ethical standard requiring court personnel to maintain a hands-off attitude in dealings with litigants to preserve the integrity of the judiciary and avoid suspicion. Her admission of expecting monetary gain from the transaction, as implied by her statement “Kahit papaano kikita ako riyan” and her role as an “agent,” demonstrated a materialistic orientation. Furthermore, the liquidation she presented showed she overcharged for stenographic notes by applying a higher rate not yet in effect and claimed unsubstantiated expenses without receipts, exposing her to suspicion of expense-padding. Her actions constituted gross or serious misconduct, defined as a transgression of established rules of action or unlawful behavior by a public officer, which undermines public faith in the courts. The penalty of dismissal, with cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of leave and retirement credits, and prejudice to reinstatement, is imposed.