AM P 05 1938; (January, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. P-05-1938. January 30, 2018. THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. MR. CRISPIN C. EGIPTO, JR., CLERK OF COURT IV, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, PAGADIAN CITY, Respondent.
FACTS
The Court, in a prior decision dated November 7, 2017, found respondent Crispin C. Egipto, Jr., Clerk of Court IV, guilty of gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and grave misconduct for failing to remit his collections on time. Consequently, he was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, excluding earned leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency.
The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking a reduction of his penalty. He pleaded for mitigation, citing his 36 years of service in the judiciary, his candid acknowledgement of his offense and feeling of remorse, his full restitution of the shortages amounting to ₱98,652.81, his advancing age and medical condition, and the fact that he was nearing his mandatory retirement by January 4, 2019. He proposed a penalty of six months suspension or a fine instead of dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the mitigating circumstances cited by the respondent warrant a reduction of the penalty of dismissal from service.
RULING
Yes, the Court granted the motion for reconsideration and mitigated the penalty. The legal logic is anchored on the discretion granted to the disciplining authority under Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service to consider mitigating circumstances in determining the proper penalty. The Court, citing Arganosa-Maniego v. Salinas, has consistently refrained from imposing the harshest penalties when significant mitigating factors are present, such as long service, acknowledgment of infractions, remorse, restitution, humanitarian considerations, and advanced age.
The Court emphasized that where a less punitive penalty would suffice, a severe consequence like dismissal should not be imposed, considering not only the employee but also the welfare of his dependent family. Unemployment inflicts hardship on those reliant on the wage earner. Conformably, the Court found the respondent’s circumstances—particularly his lengthy service, restitution, remorse, and proximity to retirement—sufficiently compelling to merit compassion. Thus, the penalty was modified from dismissal to a one-year suspension without pay, coupled with a stern warning against repetition.