AM P 06 2186; (July, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-06-2186 and P-12-3026; July 3, 2012
Filomena B. Consolacion and Judge Emma S. Ines-Parajas, Complainants, vs. Lydia S. Gambito, Court Stenographer, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Binalonan, Pangasinan, Respondent.
FACTS
In A.M. No. P-06-2186, complainant Filomena B. Consolacion alleged that in November 2002, respondent Lydia S. Gambito, a court stenographer, sold her a tricycle for ₱65,000.00 under a Deed of Sale. Respondent promised to deliver the original Certificate of Registration but failed to do so. In July 2005, a bank manager and policemen repossessed the tricycle, revealing it had been previously mortgaged and foreclosed, a fact never disclosed by respondent. In her defense, Gambito claimed the transaction was merely a loan with the tricycle as security, and her failure to settle was due to a failed recruitment agency for her son’s overseas work and her resulting financial and health problems.
In the consolidated A.M. No. P-12-3026, Judge Emma S. Ines-Parajas charged Gambito with demanding and receiving ₱3,000.00 from a litigant, Erlinda R. Rillera, under the false pretense that it was for the judge’s birthday gift. An investigation confirmed this solicitation. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) consolidated the cases and found respondent liable for three counts of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Lydia S. Gambito is administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service based on the consolidated complaints.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent GUILTY of three counts of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and DISMISSED her from service. The Court emphasized that court personnel must uphold the highest standards of integrity and propriety. In the first case, respondent’s act of selling a mortgaged property without disclosure constituted dishonesty and gross misconduct, eroding public trust in the judiciary. Her defense of a loan agreement was unsubstantiated and contradicted by the executed Deed of Sale. This act alone warranted severe sanction.
In the second case, respondent’s solicitation of money from a litigant under the guise of a gift for the presiding judge was a grave abuse of her official position for personal gain. This act of improper solicitation directly undermined the integrity of the court and was prejudicial to the service. The Court applied the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, where such offenses are punishable by dismissal. The consolidated actions demonstrated a pattern of conduct unbecoming a court employee. The penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification from government service was imposed to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice.