G.R. No. A.M. No. P-97-1247 May 14, 1997
Narita Rabe, complainant, vs. Delsa M. Flores, Interpreter III, RTC, Branch IV, Panabo, Davao, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Narita Rabe charged respondent Delsa M. Flores, an Interpreter III at the RTC, with “Conduct Unbecoming a Government Employee, Acts Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service and Abuse of Authority” for allegedly taking over a market stall and destroying complainant’s stall. The Court initially absolved respondent of this charge but required her to explain several administrative issues. These issues were: a) a discrepancy between certifications regarding her start date as a court interpreter (May 16, 1991 per the Clerk of Court) and her last day with the Municipal Government (June 3, 1991 per the Municipal Treasurer), and her oath-taking date (June 17, 1991); b) her failure to report her business interest (a market stall) in her Sworn Statements of Assets and Liabilities for 1991-1994; c) her failure to divest herself of said business interest within 60 days from assumption of office; and d) discrepancies in her Daily Time Records for August and September 1995, which showed her working on days when her market stall lease required her personal presence.
In her explanation, respondent admitted receiving her salary from the Municipality of Panabo for May 16-31, 1991, despite having started at the RTC on May 16, 1991, claiming she intended to refund it but forgot. She argued the Municipal Treasurer’s certification was inaccurate, and she took her oath on June 17 only because she received the form then. She claimed she did not report the stall as a business interest because she was “never engaged in business,” and that her DTRs were accurate because her lease was not implemented due to a pending civil case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Delsa M. Flores is administratively liable for dishonesty and failure to disclose a business interest, warranting the penalty of dismissal.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of dishonesty and failure to disclose a business interest, and is dismissed from service. The Court found her explanations unsatisfactory. Her admission that she collected and kept a salary from the Municipality for a period when she was already working at the RTC constitutes dishonesty. Her defense of financial need and forgetfulness is unacceptable. The constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust demands the highest degree of honesty and integrity from judiciary personnel. Under the Omnibus Rules, the penalty for dishonesty is dismissal even for a first offense.
Furthermore, her failure to explain the discrepancy in her employment dates and her admission that she “had a stall in the market” established her failure to perform her legal duty to disclose that business interest in her Sworn Statements. The Court also noted the Office of the Court Administrator’s finding that she received rental payments for the stall. Her failure to divest herself of this interest within the period required by law ( Republic Act No. 6713 ) constituted a violation warranting administrative sanction.