A.M. No. P-10-2867, June 19, 2012
Executive Judge Melanio C. Rojas, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, Complainant, vs. Ana Marivic L. Mina, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Executive Judge Melanio C. Rojas, Jr. reported to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that respondent Ana Marivic L. Mina, a Clerk III, had stolen and encashed checks covering the Special Allowance for Judges and Justices (SAJJ) payable to him and other judges without their knowledge or authority. Specifically, an envelope containing SAJJ checks for two other judges was erroneously sent to their court; respondent received and encashed them. She later settled with those judges. Further investigation revealed that respondent had been retrieving mail from the post office, including a ₱30,000 SAJJ check payable to Judge Rojas, which she likewise encashed without authority, as testified to by employees of a local cooperative.
Respondent resigned in June 2009, which Judge Rojas viewed as a preemptive move. In her comment to the OCA, she did not deny the allegations but claimed she had executed a deed of quitclaim in favor of Judge Rojas and was endeavoring to settle her obligations within ninety days under a subsequent verbal agreement.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Ana Marivic L. Mina is administratively liable for Gross Misconduct and Dishonesty.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of Gross Misconduct and Dishonesty. The Court affirmed the OCA’s findings, which were substantiated by the record. Respondent’s acts of stealing and encashing SAJJ checks payable to judges constituted grave offenses that violated the high ethical standards required of judiciary personnel. The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel demands moral righteousness, as employees are sentinels of justice, and any impropriety erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
The Court emphasized that respondent virtually admitted liability by not denying the specific allegations of theft and encashment and by focusing her defense solely on her efforts to settle the monetary obligation. This defense is unavailing. Administrative liability is not extinguished by restitution or a willingness to pay. Citing precedents, the Court ruled that the settlement of a debt or the payment of a shortage does not exonerate a public employee from disciplinary action, as such actions address the misconduct itself as an act unbecoming a public servant, not merely the private financial aspect.
Since respondent had already resigned, the penalty of dismissal could no longer be imposed. In lieu thereof, the Court imposed a fine of ₱40,000, with forfeiture of all government benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetually disqualified her from reemployment in any government agency or government-owned or controlled corporation. This penalty serves to uphold the integrity of the judicial service and deter similar misconduct.