A.M. No. P-2328 & A.M. No. P-2386. June 29, 1982.
IN THE MATTER OF THE LOSS OF ONE (1) TAMAYA TRANSIT, AN EXHIBIT IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 193; EXECUTIVE JUDGE ERNESTO P. VALENCIA, Court of First Instance of Aurora, petitioner, vs. SALVADOR LOPEZ, JR., formerly Acting Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of Aurora, respondent.

FACTS

These consolidated administrative cases involve respondent Salvador Lopez, Jr., then Acting Officer-in-Charge of the Clerk of Court, CFI Aurora. In A.M. No. P-2386, a Tamaya Transit, an exhibit in Criminal Case No. 533, was discovered missing on April 21, 1979, by security guard Edwin Bijasa. Bijasa immediately reported the loss to respondent Lopez. Instead of informing the Executive Judge, Lopez advised Bijasa to keep quiet and let the loss be discovered only when the exhibit was needed for trial. The loss was formally reported to Executive Judge Valencia only on September 24, 1979, by another clerk, Manuel Sindac. An investigation found that the exhibit had been improperly handled by court personnel before its disappearance and that Lopez’s failure to report hindered any recovery effort.
In A.M. No. P-2328, a wristwatch, an exhibit in Criminal Case No. 193, was found to have been pawned by respondent Lopez while in his official custody. The investigation established that Lopez took the watch from the evidence cabinet, pawned it, and later concocted a story about pawning his own personal watch to explain its absence. His version was contradicted by witness testimonies and evidence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Salvador Lopez, Jr. is administratively liable for his actions concerning the court exhibits in his custody.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The legal logic rests on the fundamental duties of a clerk of court as a custodian of court records and properties. Under Section 7, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, a clerk of court has the duty to safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits, and public property committed to his charge. This duty demands the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness.
Regarding the lost transit, Lopez’s failure to report the loss immediately to the Executive Judge constituted gross neglect. His instruction to conceal the loss for months demonstrated an indifferent and irresponsible attitude, violating his custodial duty and obstructing the prompt investigation needed to recover the exhibit. This act alone reveals unfitness for office. Concerning the pawned wristwatch, Lopez’s act of taking and pawning a court exhibit is a blatant act of dishonesty and misappropriation. His attempt to fabricate an alibi further compounds his culpability. These actions collectively show a glaring lack of the integrity required for a court employee. The Court adopted the recommendation of the Court Administrator, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and pay, with prejudice to reinstatement in any government branch or instrumentality.