-versus-
ROMEO
LLEGUE,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I
O N
PUNO,
J.:
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In August 2002, complainant
Julie Parcon Song filed a complaint against respondent Romeo Llegue,
Utility
Worker I, Court of Appeals, for conduct prejudicial to the best
interest
of the service. Complainant alleged that she was authorized by her
aunt,
Julia Vitug, through a special power of attorney, to follow up the
latter’s
case pending in the Court of Appeals. Thus, she went to the Court of
Appeals
to look for friends and acquaintances who could possibly help her.
There
she met the respondent who introduced himself as a responsible employee
of the court. He befriended her and made her believe that he could
facilitate
the resolution of her aunt’s case. Through sweet, convincing talk,
respondent
persuaded complainant to give him P3,000.00 as consideration for his
services.
Complainant issued a check in his name in the amount of P3,000.00.
Respondent
promised complainant that the case would be finished by June, but he
failed
on his promise. He also refused to refund the amount advanced by
complainant.
Complainant further alleged that respondent would sometimes go to her
beauty
salon and ask for some petty cash of P200.00 to P500.00. In one
instance,
he obliged her to shell out P1,000.00, allegedly to buy some expensive
liquor for a court researcher.[1]
Respondent filed his
counter-affidavit denying complainant’s charges. He stated that he
works
as messenger at the Mailing and Delivery Section of the Court of
Appeals
and he has no knowledge on how to follow up cases in the court. He
narrated
that he met complainant in 1994 at their old office. She was a friend
of
his immediate superior and Chief of the Mailing and Delivery Section,
Mr.
Prudencio Aguilar. Once, complainant requested Mr. Aguilar to find out
the status of a certain case. The latter gave him a piece of paper and
instructed him to go to the Information and Statistical Data Division.
He complied and returned the piece of paper to Mr. Aguilar with some
notation
made by the Information Officer. From then on, complainant would
frequent
their office and go to Mr. Aguilar. Respondent said that he never
persuaded
the complainant to give him P3,000.00 to follow up a certain case. He
claimed
that the amount was a loan from complainant which he promised to pay
upon
receipt of their allowance from the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).
Unfortunately,
he failed to promptly pay his debt because of the untimely demise of
his
father. But he finally settled the full amount of P3,000.00 through
complainant’s
counsel, the Basco Law Office, after demand by the complainant.
Respondent
also denied going to complainant’s beauty parlor to ask for money.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The parties appeared
before Court of Appeals Assistant Clerk of Court Elisa B.
Pilar-Longalong
who conducted an investigation on the case.cralaw:red
After hearing the parties
and evaluating their documentary evidence, Atty. Longalong submitted
her
Report to Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia. Her
findings
were as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent admittedly
and undeniably received the amount of P3,000 from complainant. However,
while complainant alleged that the amount was in consideration of his
following
up a pending case in her behalf, respondent maintains that the same was
a loan he secured from complainant to help him defray his daily
expenses
and which he has already fully paid. While respondent may have intended
the said amount as a loan, he cannot fault the complainant for
believing
that the same was in consideration of his efforts in following up the
status
of a pending case, considering that he admittedly was instructed once
by
his immediate superior, Prudencio Aguilar, Chief of the Mailing and
Delivery
Section and complainant’s friend, to find out the status of her pending
case, upon her request (Exh. 1). Although there is no substantial
evidence
that Mr. Llegue himself boasted that he can facilitate or influence the
outcome of the case, his receipt of the amount from one who has a
pending
case creates the misimpression that he can facilitate or influence its
outcome.cralaw:red
Regardless of whether
the amount was given in consideration of respondent’s efforts for
following-up
a case or whether it was a loan secured by respondent and whether or
not
respondent knew how to follow up a case or is capable of facilitating
or
influencing its outcome, respondent’s conduct either way is
unacceptable
and intolerable and constitute(s) a grave administrative offense.
Respondent
admitted that he secured the amount as a loan from complainant.
Although
he is charged with the grave offense or conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, the act complained of and the findings based
on
respondent’s own admission prove that he is guilty of another grave
administrative
offense, that of contracting a loan of money from a person with a
pending
case in the court of which he is an employee. The fact that he has paid
the loan does not diminish his administrative liability.[3]
Atty. Longalong made
the following recommendation:
1. Rule IV, Section
52 of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, S. 1999
provides
that the penalty for the first offense of "contracting loans of money
or
other property from persons with whom the office of the employee has
business
relations", is dismissal. However, the circumstances that respondent
voluntarily
admitted said offense, his length of service of 13 years and 9 months
and
the fact that he has returned the amount to the complainant’s counsel,
may be considered as mitigating and for humanitarian reasons the lesser
penalty of suspension may be imposed upon him.cralaw:red
2. Considering that
the prescribed penalty for the offense exceeds one month suspension,
the
case may now be referred to the Supreme Court for appropriate action,
pursuant
to Circular No. 30-91 of the Office of the Court Administrator.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Adopting the report
and recommendation of the investigator, Presiding Justice Cancio C.
Garcia
referred the Report to this Court on March 19, 2003.cralaw:red
The Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), in its Memorandum dated July 14, 2003 held:
The Investigator found
the respondent guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the
service and recommended a suspension of one month which (then) Acting
Presiding
Justice of the Court of Appeals, the Honorable Cancio C. Garcia, adopts
as his own recommendation in the case.cralaw:red
After going over the
records of the case, we find the above findings and conclusions
supported
by evidence. However, we disagree with the recommendation that
respondent
be suspended from the service for just one month as the same is not in
accord with the applicable administrative rules.cralaw:red
Under the Personnel
Manual of the Supreme Court, conduct grossly prejudicial to the best
interest
of the service constitutes violation of the Civil Service Rules. Being
a grave offense, a public employee found guilty of such offense should
be meted the penalty of, in case of first infraction, suspension for
six
(6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year. Commission of the same act
for the second time is punishable by dismissal. Thus, we have no other
recourse but to impose the proper penalty as provided by law.cralaw:red
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,
the undersigned respectfully recommends that the respondent be
SUSPENDED
from the service for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay, with
warning
that the commission of similar or graver offense in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the recommendation
of the OCA. Respondent admitted having received P3,000.00 from
complainant,
although he claims that it was a loan. This fact is also evidenced by a
photocopy of the Allied Bank check dated April 3, 2002 issued by
complainant
to respondent, which he encashed on the same day.[6]
Respondent also acknowledged receiving such amount from complainant in
his letter to complainant, through her counsel, remitting his payment
for
his debt.[7]
Respondent’s act of receiving money from a litigant who has a pending
case
before the court where he is working is highly improper and warrants
sanction
from this Court.[8]
As stated by the Investigating Officer, the mere fact that he received
money from a litigant unavoidably creates an impression not only in the
litigant but also in other people that he could facilitate the
favorable
resolution of the cases pending before the court. Such behavior puts
not
only the court personnel involved, but the judiciary as well, in a bad
light. We have often stressed that the conduct required of court
personnel,
from the presiding judge to the lowliest of clerk must always be beyond
reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as
to
let them be free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary.[9]
All court personnel are expected to exhibit the highest sense of
honesty
and integrity not only in the performance of their official duties but
also in their personal and private dealings with other people to
preserve
the Court’s good name and standing. This is because the image of a
court
of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the
men
and women who work there. Any impression of impropriety, misdeed or
negligence
must be avoided.[10]
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent
Romeo Llegue, Utility Worker I, Court of Appeals, is SUSPENDED for a
period
of six (6) months and one (1) day without pay, with warning that the
commission
of similar or graver offense in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 2-3.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 5-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Report of Atty. Elisa B. Pilar-Longalong, p. 3.
[4]
Id., pp. 3-4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Memorandum of Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., p. 3.
[6]
Exhibits "B" and "B-1", Rollo, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Exhibit "2", Rollo, p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
See Office of the Court Administrator vs. Diaz, 303 SCRA 243 (1999).
[9]
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Diaz, supra note 8; Tiongco vs.
Molina,
364 SCRA 294 (2001).
[10]
Velasquez vs. Inacay, AM No. CA-02-11-P, May 29, 2002.