A.M. No. 2018-03-SC, August 7, 2019
RE: MS. NENNETTE G. ZALDIVAR, TRAINING SPECIALIST II, PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY vs. MR. ELIZALDE S. CARMONA, JUDICIAL STAFF EMPLOYEE II, PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY

FACTS

Complainant Nennette G. Zaldivar and respondent Elizalde S. Carmona were both employees of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA). In February 2016, respondent verbally agreed to sell his Supreme Court Savings and Loan Association (SCSLA) capital to complainant for ₱2,000.00. Complainant subsequently deposited ₱5,000.00 monthly into respondent’s SCSLA account from February 2016 to November 2017. On February 9, 2017, respondent executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of complainant, authorizing her to claim checks, encash them, and enter into transactions involving his SCSLA account, and he surrendered his SCSLA passbook to her. In November 2017, complainant discovered upon updating the passbook that the balance did not match her total deposits of ₱112,000.00. It was revealed that respondent had withdrawn ₱7,000.00 in May 2016 and had applied for an equitable loan in March 2017 and an equity loan in May 2017 without her knowledge. This prompted complainant to file an administrative complaint for gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct unbecoming a public servant, praying that respondent be directed to pay ₱70,000.00 for breaching their agreement. During the investigation by the Office of Administrative Services (OAS), respondent admitted to the acts. The parties reached an agreement for restitution, and complainant executed an Acknowledgment Receipt for ₱52,350.67 representing respondent’s payments from April to September 2018. The OAS found respondent guilty of simple dishonesty and recommended a two-month suspension without pay. It also recommended that complainant be severely warned for engaging in prohibited “dummy” activities by buying SCSLA capitals, per SCSLA Board Resolution No. 03-75, Series of 2003.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Elizalde S. Carmona is administratively liable for the acts complained of, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court concurred with the OAS finding of guilt but modified the penalty. Respondent’s acts of secretly withdrawing ₱7,000.00 and obtaining two loans despite having no capital contributions in the account, while withholding this information from complainant, constitute simple dishonesty as defined under CSC Resolution No. 06-0538. The acts did not cause damage or prejudice to the government and were not related to his official duties. The penalty for a first offense of simple dishonesty is suspension of one month and one day to six months. Considering the mitigating circumstances in respondent’s favor—his 25 years of service, his admissions and restitution of ₱52,350.67, and this being his first offense—the Court deemed a suspension of one month and one day without pay as appropriate. Respondent was given a stern warning. The Court also directed complainant to desist from buying SCSLA capitals to gain undue advantage, per SCSLA Board Resolution No. 03-75, with a stern warning.