G.R. No. A.M. No. P-17-3771, January 24, 2018
JUDGE DENNIS B. CASTILLA, Complainant vs. MARIA LUZ A. DUNCANO, CLERK OF COURT IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BUTUAN, AGUSAN DEL SUR, Respondent

FACTS

Judge Dennis B. Castilla, Executive Judge of the MTCC of Butuan City, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Clerk of Court Maria Luz A. Duncano. The complaint alleged that Duncano, in relation to Criminal Case No. 43863, demanded and collected PhP 7,000 from the family of the accused, Nathaniel Lamoste, for his bail bond during inquest proceedings, despite no bail having been set. Although she eventually returned the money, she did so only after repeated demands and after giving the family false hopes about the release. The complaint also accused Duncano of dishonesty and gross negligence concerning a lost Supreme Court-issued EPSON printer, alleging she submitted a misleading explanation and repair receipt for it.
Duncano denied the accusations. She claimed she never demanded money, that the cash was handed to her by a police clerk for bail posting, and that she returned it upon the court’s order for release without bail. Regarding the printer, she asserted it was not lost but found within the court premises, declared unserviceable, and later returned to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Maria Luz A. Duncano is administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of a court employee.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Duncano administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of a court employee and imposed a two-month suspension. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Judge. On the charge of improper solicitation and handling of money, the Court found Duncano’s actions improper. Even accepting her version that the money was merely handed to her for bail, her failure to immediately return the amount upon learning no bail was required, coupled with giving the family false assurances, constituted conduct falling short of the high standards of integrity and propriety demanded of court personnel. This act eroded public trust in the judiciary.
The Court emphasized that a Clerk of Court holds a position of great responsibility and is required to be a person of competence, honesty, and probity. Public office is a public trust, and court employees must serve with utmost responsibility and integrity. Duncano’s actions, particularly in the handling of the bail money matter, demonstrated a lack of the circumspection required for her office. While the Court did not find sufficient evidence to sustain the more serious charges of dishonesty and gross negligence regarding the printer, the established facts surrounding the monetary transaction warranted administrative sanction for conduct unbecoming. The penalty of suspension serves to uphold the ethical standards of the judiciary.