AM P 13 3119; (February, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-13-3119 (Formerly A.M. No. 12-9-68-MeTC), February 10, 2014
Case Parties: EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. OFELIA S. CONTRERAS-SORIANO, Complainant, vs. CLERK III LIZA D. SALAMANCA, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55, MALABON CITY, Respondent.
FACTS
This administrative case originated from a letter filed by Executive Judge Ma. Ofelia S. Contreras-Soriano against respondent Liza D. Salamanca, Clerk III of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 55, Malabon City. The charges included:
1. Unauthorized and unexplained absences on various dates in 2011 and 2012 (specifically September 5, 28-30, October 3-10, 17-18, 2011; and July 2-11, July 23-27, August 15-22, 2012) without filing the requisite leave applications.
2. Failure to account for and turn over ₱12,000.00 received from the defendant in Jose M. Syjuco v. Dr. Joseph B. Morales as partial settlement for the plaintiff.
3. Failure to account for and turn over payment for legal fees received in Sopia Quiroga v. Annie Fermisa, which omission was discovered when a writ of execution could not be implemented due to the missing official receipt.
In her comment, Salamanca attributed her absences to failing health due to personal and professional pressures, including a heavy workload and weekly commute from Nueva Ecija. She denied misappropriating the ₱12,000.00, claiming she lost it during her commute, and offered to reimburse the amount. She pleaded for compassion considering her 20 years of service and her family’s financial dependence on her.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Salamanca liable for unauthorized absences in violation of Civil Service Rules and Administrative Circulars. Regarding the monetary infractions, the OCA found her explanation doubtful and construed her actions as demonstrating a propensity to receive money from litigants without authority and appropriate it for personal use. The OCA recommended the penalty of dismissal from service for grave misconduct and dishonesty.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Liza D. Salamanca is administratively liable for the charges against her, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the OCA’s findings of liability but MODIFIED the recommended penalty.
1. On Unauthorized Absences: The Court sustained the OCA’s finding that Salamanca incurred unauthorized absences, violating Civil Service rules.
2. On the Monetary Infractions: The Court found Salamanca guilty of Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Her claim of losing the money was deemed a flimsy afterthought. Her actions displayed a disposition to deceive and defraud, violating the norm of public accountability and diminishing public faith in the Judiciary.
However, the Court clarified that the amounts involved did not constitute “court funds” as no official receipts were issued (Salamanca was not authorized to receive payments or issue receipts). Therefore, the stringent rules applicable to accountable officers for failure to remit fiduciary collections (under SC Circular No. 50-95) were not directly applicable. The money in Syjuco was private settlement money, and the legal fee in Quiroga never entered the court’s coffers.
3. On the Penalty: The Court rejected the OCA’s recommendation of dismissal. Considering mitigating factors—including Salamanca’s 20 years of previously unblemished service, her family circumstances, humanitarian considerations, and the principle that a less severe penalty should be imposed where sufficient—the Court tempered its judgment.
Citing analogous cases (Arganosa-Maniego v. Salinas and De Guzman, Jr. v. Mendoza), the Court imposed a ONE (1) YEAR SUSPENSION without pay. The Court warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, Liza D. Salamanca, Clerk III of Metropolitan Trial Court, Malabon City, Branch 55, is hereby found GUILTY of Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Public Service, and is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of ONE (1) YEAR without pay, commencing upon notice of this Decision, with warning that a repetition of the same or similar act/s shall be dealt with more severely.