G.R. No. A.M. No. P-90-416 August 25, 1994
Angeline Gasulas, complainant, vs. Anecita Maralit, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Angeline Gasulas charged respondent Anecita Maralit, a stenographic reporter of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Branch 1, Surigao City, with violating Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5 dated October 4, 1988, which prohibits judiciary officials and employees from engaging in any private business, vocation, or profession without prior court approval. The complaint alleged that respondent and her husband conducted a pyramiding business operation. Complainant testified that in September 1989, she was recruited by respondent to be a solicitor for this business while both were government employees. Respondent denied the charges, claiming she merely assisted her husband’s rice-dealership and sari-sari store during her free time and that the complaint was retaliatory for estafa cases she filed against complainant and her witness. During the investigation by designated Judge Andres Enriquez, evidence showed complainant turned over solicitations to respondent at her court office, with documents bearing respondent’s signature acknowledging receipt of invested amounts. Witness Adelina Javier corroborated that she was also recruited as a solicitor and that respondent directed her to open a bank account for remittances. Respondent admitted on cross-examination to receiving the amounts and signing the documents. The Investigating Judge found it unbelievable that respondent was involved in such a substantial business operation only during her free time and not during office hours.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Anecita Maralit is guilty of violating Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5 by engaging in a private pyramiding business operation.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent GUILTY of violating Administrative Circular No. 5. The Court emphasized that the Circular, which prohibits judiciary officials and employees from engaging in private business, is based on the requirement that their entire time must be devoted to government service to ensure efficient administration of justice, and that executive department memoranda allowing such activities outside office hours are not applicable to the judiciary. The evidence established respondent’s active involvement in the pyramiding business, including receiving solicited investments at her office. The Court imposed a penalty of SUSPENSION from office for SIX (6) MONTHS WITHOUT PAY, which cannot be charged against her accumulated leave credits.