G.R. No. P-03-1726. July 22, 2004.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. DOMINIQUE D. JUAN, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a report by Judge Ma. Theresa L. Dela Torre-Yadao of the RTC, Branch 81, Quezon City, regarding a missing firearm exhibit (a 9mm CZ pistol) in Criminal Case No. Q-00-97420. During a hearing on May 7, 2003, the defense counsel requested the production of the pistol, but the docket clerk could not locate it in the court’s steel cabinet for exhibits. Judge Dela Torre-Yadao formally reported the loss to the Court Administrator.
Subsequently, on May 19, 2003, respondent Dominique D. Juan, a Branch Process Server, confessed to the judge in the presence of the Branch Clerk of Court and the docket clerk that he had taken the pistol, its magazine, and cartridges. The following day, respondent surrendered the items and tendered his resignation. The matter was referred for investigation, but respondent failed to appear despite notices. The Investigating Judge found that respondent took the exhibit without the knowledge of the accountable officer.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Dominique D. Juan is administratively liable for his actions concerning the missing court exhibit.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental responsibilities of court personnel and the gravity of compromising court evidence. As a process server, respondent had no custodial duty or right to possess court exhibits; that duty belongs exclusively to the clerk of court as the legal custodian of all court records and properties under Rule 136, Section 7 of the Rules of Court. His unauthorized taking of a crucial piece of evidence in a criminal case constituted a blatant act of dishonesty and a serious breach of trust.
The Court emphasized that resignation does not moot administrative proceedings or shield an employee from liability. Respondent’s failure to participate in the investigation and his precipitate resignation were deemed indicative of guilt. Under Section 22, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, both dishonesty and grave misconduct are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from service, even for a first offense. To preserve public confidence in the judiciary, court personnel must uphold the highest standards of integrity. The penalty imposed was dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and disqualification from re-employment in any government agency.