G.R. No. A.M. No. P-08-2555 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2780-P). November 26, 2019.
MARIA ROSANNA J. SANTOS, complainant, vs. EMMA J. RAYMUNDO, Clerk III, Branch 69; GEORGE F. LUCERO, Process Server, Branch 71; and RONALD P. FAJARDO, Process Server, Office of the Clerk of Court, all in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Pasig City, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Maria Rosanna J. Santos filed an administrative complaint against respondents Emma J. Raymundo, George F. Lucero, and Ronald P. Fajardo, all court employees of the Pasig Metropolitan Trial Court, for conduct unbecoming of a court employee due to their failure to pay debts. Raymundo borrowed a total of P100,000.00 from Santos and issued checks that were dishonored due to a closed account. Lucero borrowed P6,000.00, and Fajardo borrowed P4,500.00. During collection attempts at the courthouse, the respondents allegedly uttered invectives against Santos. Santos filed criminal and civil actions and this administrative case. All respondents admitted their monetary obligations but claimed partial payments and denied the verbal altercations, countering that Santos humiliated them and filed criminal complaints against her. During the formal investigation, Santos manifested dismissal of the complaint against Lucero after he paid P5,000.00, and Fajardo submitted an Affidavit of Desistance from Santos. Raymundo and Santos entered into a Compromise Agreement wherein Raymundo acknowledged a debt of P225,000.00 and agreed to pay monthly installments and assign loan proceeds from the Supreme Court Savings and Loan Association (SCSLA) to Santos. The investigating judge initially found all respondents guilty of conduct unbecoming and recommended reprimand, which the Court adopted in a July 1, 2009 Resolution. Subsequently, Santos informed the Court that Raymundo reneged on the Compromise Agreement by not turning over SCSLA loan proceeds as agreed. Raymundo admitted this failure, citing family sickness and rental payments, and requested interest reduction or extension. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Raymundo acted in bad faith and recommended suspension. The Court, however, required further comment from Raymundo, who repeatedly failed to comply with directives, leading to a show-cause order for contempt.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Emma J. Raymundo is administratively liable for her failure to comply with the Compromise Agreement and the Court’s directives, constituting a second offense warranting dismissal from service.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found Emma J. Raymundo GUILTY of contracting loans of money from a person with whom her office has business relations and of insubordination for the second time. The Court emphasized that court personnel must adhere to high ethical standards and comply with just contractual obligations. Raymundo’s willful dishonoring of the Compromise Agreement, failure to turn over SCSLA loan proceeds as promised, and repeated disregard of the Court’s orders demonstrated dishonesty, bad faith, and insubordination. These acts violated civil service rules prohibiting contracting loans from persons with whom the office has business relations and constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Considering this was her second offense (the first being the earlier reprimand for conduct unbecoming), the penalty of dismissal was imposed. The Court DISMISSED Raymundo from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from holding public office. She was also ordered to comply with the Compromise Agreement. The cases against Lucero and Fajardo were deemed concluded due to desistance and settlement.