G.R. No. A.M. No. P-21-030 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 17-4762-P). April 05, 2022
Rowell E. Abella and Ruben De Ocampo, Complainants, vs. Teodora P. Parfan, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Lucena City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rowell E. Abella was the accused in a Frustrated Homicide case (Criminal Case No. 2005-1127) before the RTC, Branch 59, Lucena City, where respondent Teodora P. Parfan worked as Court Stenographer III. Complainant Ruben De Ocampo was the father of the victim. Upon the advice of the presiding judge, the parties agreed to settle. Respondent Parfan, also known as “Tita Dory,” discussed and facilitated the terms, whereby Abella would pay De Ocampo a total of ₱72,000.00 in installments of ₱5,000.00 every two months.
Abella consistently remitted his payments, totaling ₱40,000.00, to Parfan from September 18, 2013, with the understanding that she would deliver the money to De Ocampo. However, De Ocampo only received about ₱14,000.00 from Parfan. On one occasion, De Ocampo received only ₱4,000.00 for a ₱5,000.00 installment, with Parfan assuring him the balance would be added to the next payment, which it never was. The discrepancy was discovered when Abella and De Ocampo compared records. Parfan then suggested they “settle accounts” regarding how much she had received and given, but subsequently made herself scarce. On a separate occasion, Parfan’s child handed De Ocampo ₱5,000.00 outside the court premises. Thereafter, De Ocampo received no further payments and lost contact with Parfan.
Administrative complaints were filed. Despite repeated directives from the Court, Parfan failed to file her comment. She had also been dropped from the rolls effective February 2, 2015, for being absent without official leave. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the complainants’ uncontroverted affidavits sufficient and recommended holding Parfan liable for Simple Misconduct, with a fine of ₱5,000.00.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent Teodora P. Parfan is guilty of Simple Misconduct or Gross Misconduct.
2. What law or rule should be applied in imposing the appropriate offense and penalty.

RULING

The Court modified the OCA’s findings and ruled that respondent Teodora P. Parfan is guilty of GROSS MISCONDUCT.
1. On the Nature of the Offense: Misconduct is a transgression of an established rule of action, particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer, and must have a direct connection to the performance of official duties. For misconduct to be grave, it must involve the additional elements of corruption, a willful intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules, as established by substantial evidence.
The Court found that Parfan’s acts involved corruption, defined as unlawfully using one’s station to procure a benefit for oneself contrary to duty. By receiving settlement payments from Abella, failing to remit them fully and promptly to De Ocampo, and suggesting a private accounting of the funds, she misappropriated money entrusted to her by virtue of her court position. Her actions constituted a willful and flagrant disregard of her duty as a court employee to act with honesty and integrity. This behavior directly related to her official functions, as she exploited her role in the court-facilitated settlement. Her failure to account for the funds and her subsequent evasion of the administrative proceedings further demonstrated her culpability. Therefore, her actions constituted Gross Misconduct, not merely Simple Misconduct.
2. On the Applicable Rule and Penalty: The offense was committed in 2013-2015. Following the principle that the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense governs, the applicable rule is the 2011 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 140 (prior to its 2020 and 2021 amendments). Under the 2011 Rule 140, Section 8, Gross Misconduct is a serious charge. For a first offense, the penalty is dismissal from service, forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leave credits), and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office.
Considering Parfan had already been dropped from the rolls in 2015, the Court imposed the accessory penalties of forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government agency or instrumentality.
DISPOSITIVE: Respondent Teodora P. Parfan was found GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT. She was meted the accessory penalties of forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.