G.R. No. P-04-1844. July 23, 2004
Giorgio Ratti, complainant, vs. Lucila Mendoza-De Castro, Interpreter I, Municipal Trial Court, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Giorgio Ratti, an Italian national, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Lucila Mendoza-De Castro, a court interpreter, for conduct grossly prejudicial to the service, conduct unbecoming a government employee, immorality, and falsification of public documents. The complainant alleged that the respondent failed to disclose her prior conviction for grave slander in her Personal Data Sheet when she applied for her position. He further accused her of “lawyering” or engaging in unauthorized legal practice by handling collection cases for local businessmen, instigating cases against him, and improperly leaking confidential court information, such as details of search warrant applications and unpromulgated decisions, to interested parties.
The respondent denied the charges. She admitted her conviction but argued it was for simple slander, not involving moral turpitude, and thus she believed she need not disclose it. She claimed ignorance of her husband’s prior marriages in the bigamy case. She asserted her assistance to others was merely informal help, not legal practice, and denied leaking any confidential court information. The case was referred to an Executive Judge for investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Mendoza-De Castro is administratively liable for the charges against her.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable and is dismissed from service. The Court found her guilty of dishonesty, gross misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The investigation confirmed she deliberately falsified her Personal Data Sheet by answering “No” to questions about prior convictions and pending cases, despite her conviction for slander and several pending criminal cases at the time of her application. This constitutes dishonesty. Her claim that the crime did not involve moral turpitude is irrelevant, as the form required disclosure of any conviction without qualification.
Furthermore, her admission that she acted as a collector for local businessmen and assisted in their collection cases constitutes unauthorized private practice of law, a form of misconduct. Court personnel are strictly prohibited from engaging in such activities, as it undermines public confidence in the judiciary. While the charges of leaking information were not sufficiently proven, her established acts of dishonesty and unauthorized practice are grave offenses that erode the integrity of the judicial service. The Court emphasized that all judiciary personnel must adhere to the highest standards of honesty and propriety. The penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government agency is imposed.