AM 95 1159; (March, 1997) (Digest)
A.M. No. 95-1159. March 20, 1997. THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. WILLIAM C. SEVILLO, Process Server, 16th MCTC, Jordan-Buenavista-Nueva Valencia, Guimaras, respondent.
FACTS
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) filed an administrative complaint against respondent William C. Sevillo, a Process Server, for gross dishonesty and grave misconduct. The complaint was based on a report from the Clerk of Court, Ms. Elena Jabao, alleging that on February 21, 1995, Sevillo was caught stealing three packages of mail from the Jordan Post Office. This act led to the filing of a criminal complaint for robbery against him by the local police.
In his defense, Sevillo submitted a Comment claiming that the Clerk of Court was motivated by ill will because he had refused to support her false statements in a separate administrative case against their presiding judge. He also informed the Court that he had already been criminally convicted for the same act, having pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of theft involving P10,000. He was sentenced and placed on probation for four years by the Regional Trial Court.
ISSUE
Whether respondent William C. Sevillo should be held administratively liable for his criminal act of stealing mail matter, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable and is ordered dismissed from the service. The Court ruled that the alleged motive of the reporting party is immaterial to the administrative proceedings. What is decisive is Sevillo’s own criminal act, to which he pleaded guilty. This act constitutes grave dishonesty and grave misconduct, or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The legal logic is anchored on the stringent standard of conduct required from all judiciary personnel. Their behavior must not only be proper but must also be beyond reproach and above suspicion to preserve public trust in the judicial system. By committing theft—an act of moral turpitude—Sevillo blatantly degraded the judiciary and severely diminished public respect for the courts. He failed to exemplify the integrity, uprightness, and honesty demanded of every court employee. His transformation into, in the Court’s words, “no better than a common thief,” rendered him utterly unfit to remain in the judicial service. Consequently, dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency was imposed as the proper administrative sanction, effective from the date of his preventive suspension.