A.M. No. P-08-2458. March 22, 2010.
CRISOSTOMO M. PLOPINIO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. LIZA ZABALA-CARIÑO, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, Respondent.

FACTS

The administrative case stemmed from a letter dated January 20, 2007, by complainant Crisostomo M. Plopinio informing the Court that he had charged respondent Atty. Liza Zabala-Cariño, Clerk of Court of the RTC, Branch 29, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, criminally and administratively before the Office of the Ombudsman. Complainant stated that respondent may not have disclosed these pending Ombudsman cases in her application for Clerk of Court. In her Comment, respondent admitted awareness of the two complaints filed against her before the Ombudsman but explained that she answered “No” to item number 37(a) of her Personal Data Sheet (PDS), which asks “Have you ever been formally charged?” because the cases were still in preliminary investigation and pre-charge stages, with probable cause yet to be determined, and thus she did not consider them as formal charges. The matter was referred for investigation. The Investigating Judge found respondent liable for failure to properly understand the PDS question and recommended she be admonished. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) adopted the findings but recommended a one-month suspension without pay, arguing it was not a simple misconstruction and that as a lawyer with 18 years in government service, she should have understood the question.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Liza Zabala-Cariño is guilty of dishonesty for answering “No” to the PDS question “Have you ever been formally charged?” despite having pending complaints against her before the Office of the Ombudsman.

RULING

The Court DISMISSED the administrative complaint for lack of merit. The Court held that dishonesty requires an intention to make a false statement or deceive, which was absent in this case. Respondent’s non-disclosure was based on her interpretation of the term “formally charged” as defined in the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which distinguishes between a complaint and a formal charge. A formal charge in administrative proceedings occurs either (1) upon the filing of a complaint by the disciplining authority itself, or (2) upon the disciplining authority’s finding of a prima facie case in a complaint filed by a private person. In criminal proceedings, a person is formally charged upon the finding of probable cause and the filing of an information in court with the required approval. Since respondent’s Ombudsman cases were still in the preliminary investigation stage without a finding of prima facie case or probable cause, and no formal charge had been issued, her answer on the PDS was not dishonest. The Court found the question “Have you ever been formally charged?” subject to varied interpretations and noted that ruling otherwise would subject civil servants to undue hardship, as a formal charge carries specific legal consequences and disabilities.