G.R. No. A.M. No. P-90-452 and A.M. No. P-92-667. April 7, 1993.
NELIA RECIO, complainant, vs. VICTORINO M. ACUÑA, Deputy Sheriff, VIRGINCITA VILLALOBOS, Staff Assistant III and ANA LACADEN, Court Aide, respondents.

(Consolidated with: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. VICTORINO M. ACUÑA, Deputy Sheriff, VIRGINCITA VILLALOBOS, Staff Assistant III and ANA LACADEN, Court Aide, respondents.)

FACTS

On October 13, 1988, respondents Virgincita Villalobos and Ana B. Lacaden requested Clerk of Court Atty. Nelia Recio of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of San Juan to approve a six-month sick leave application for respondent Deputy Sheriff Victorino M. Acuña, attaching a Medical Certificate indicating he was seriously ill with pulmonary tuberculosis. Atty. Recio approved the application. However, reports later reached Atty. Recio that Acuña had left for Saipan, USA, to work as a contract worker. The Commission on Immigration and Deportation confirmed Acuña left the country on August 18, 1988, for Guam, and the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency revealed he had a one-year employment contract in Saipan.
Respondents Villalobos and Lacaden covered up for Acuña’s absence. Furthermore, they conspired to receive Acuña’s salary checks from October 30 to November 20, 1988, despite knowledge that his leave credits were exhausted by October 20, 1988. Villalobos, as the Authorized Liaison Officer, received the checks, and Lacaden forged Acuña’s signature to encash them. When Atty. Recio issued a memorandum on December 9, 1988, directing Villalobos to return the checks, Villalobos disregarded the order and responded with cutting remarks, questioning Recio’s authority.
An investigation was conducted, and the Office of the Court Administrator filed an administrative complaint recommending dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Acuña, Villalobos, and Lacaden are administratively liable for their respective actions, warranting dismissal from the service.

RULING

Yes, all three respondents are administratively liable and are dismissed from the service.
1. As to Respondent Victorino M. Acuña: He is guilty of serious infractions. His act of going abroad without the Supreme Court’s permission violated Memorandum Order No. 26. He is also guilty of dishonesty for applying for sick leave under the false pretext of serious illness to conceal his absence from the country and his pursuit of private employment abroad without permission. These acts constitute Dishonesty, Neglect of Duty, Pursuit of Private Business without permission, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service under P.D. 807, Section 36(b). These infractions warrant dismissal, as his conduct shows unfitness for government service and erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
2. As to Respondents Virgincita Villalobos and Ana Lacaden: They are likewise guilty of Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service under P.D. 807. By covering up for Acuña and conspiring to receive and encash his salary checks when he was no longer entitled, they violated the norm of public accountability. The act of forging Acuña’s signature to cash the checks is a criminal offense deserving severe penalty. Additionally, Villalobos is guilty of discourtesy and insubordination for her disrespectful and belligerent refusal to comply with Atty. Recio’s lawful directive.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Court DISMISSED Deputy Sheriff Victorino M. Acuña, Staff Assistant III Virgincita Villalobos, and Court Aide Ana Lacaden from the service, with prejudice to reinstatement or appointment to any government position and with forfeiture of all benefits. The Court also directed that a copy of the decision be furnished to the Department of Justice for a proper inquiry into the participation of Assistant Prosecutor Severina Aguilar-Acuña (Acuña’s wife) in the events of the case.