EN
BANC
|
RE:
(1) LOST CHECKS ISSUED TO THE LATE
RODERICK ROY P. MELLIZA, FORMER CLERK II, MCTC, ZARAGGA, ILOILO; and (2) DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF MS. ESTHER T.
ANDRES |
|
A.M. No.
2005-26-SC Present: PANGANIBAN, C.J., PUNO, QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO
MORALES, CALLEJO,
SR., AZCUNA,
TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
and VELASCO,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: November 22, 2006 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
PER CURIAM:
This
case arose from the loss of checks issued in the name of the late Rodrigo Roy
P. Melliza, former Clerk II, MCTC, Zaragga,
The circumstances surrounding the anomalous encashment of the said checks
can be gleaned from the report of Lilian Barribal-Co, OIC-Chief of Office, Financial Management
Office, thus:
Mr. Melliza died on
Records
show that the salaries of Mr. Melliza for the months
of August, September, and October 2004 were still mailed to him considering
that this office prepared the payroll in advance and the information of Mr. Melliza’s death was only received by the office on a later
date.
On
the other hand, the surviving spouse of Mr. Melizza
claimed that [she] no longer received the paychecks of Mr. Melizza
for the months of August, September, and October 2004 since the latter died on
|
Date of Letter |
Paycheck for |
Check Number |
Amount |
Date of Mailing |
Registry Receipt
No. |
|
1. |
1st Quincena August 2004 |
LBP No. 1562262 |
|
|
02385 |
|
2. |
2nd Quincena August 2004 |
LBP No. 1566163 |
|
|
02397 |
|
3. |
1st Quincena September 2004 |
LBP No. 1571133 |
|
|
02530 |
|
4. |
2nd Quincena September 2004 |
LBP No. 1575041 |
|
|
02665 |
|
5. |
1st Quincena October 2004 |
LBP No. 1580041 |
|
|
03814 |
In as much as the above-mentioned check[s] were not received by the Checks Releasing Division, an inquiry was made in the Post Office whether the aforementioned checks were indeed received by our Office. Verification from the Post Office disclosed that all the above-mentioned letters addressed to the Court Administrator were received by the Records Division, Office of the Administrative Services, by one ROD LANCHE. However, the letters with the paychecks were not forwarded to the Checks Releasing Division for the cancellation of the checks. Further inquiry by this office discovered that four (4) out of the five (5) above-mentioned checks were negotiated. x x x.[1]
Thus, Lilian
Barribal-Co recommended further investigation of the
case to the Complaints and Investigation Division (CID), Office of the
Administrative Services (OAS).
Per the recommendation, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Court Administrator,[2]
referred[3]
the matter to the OAS for appropriate action.
In compliance, the OAS directed[4] Rod
Lanche, Jr. (Lanche, Jr.) to
submit his comment/explanation as to the missing checks within five days from
receipt of the notice.
In
his undated comment,[5] Lanche, Jr.
explained that in May 1997, he was assigned as the Receiving Clerk of all
registered mails of the Supreme Court from all over the nation. He receives an average of 1 to 2 thousand
letters/mails daily and it takes him the whole day or more just checking them one-by-one
before signing the record book of the Post Office. He averred that his duty, after checking the
addressees in the envelopes, is to countercheck said letters/mails with the
list left by the Post Office courier/postman.
His duty is basically to receive, check, and sign all the incoming
letters/mails as Supreme Court receiver, and then sort-out all those pertaining
to the Court Administrator in one file and the rest for the Supreme Court
proper. Reynaldo Salazar (Salazar), an
employee of the Court’s Records Division, is the one in-charge of getting all
of the Supreme Court’s mailed communications from him while all letters
addressed to the Court Administrator are handed over to Esther T. Andres
(Andres), Records Officer III, and Diosdado Makasiar (Makasiar), Clerk II of
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
Both of them are authorized to open all incoming mail matters addressed
to the Court Administrator pursuant to Office Order No. 15-2004[6] dated
On
On
On
Records show that on
On
That as in-charge of the Mailing and Receiving Section, I have not encountered, received or seen any checks during my stay in the office;
That from the time my husband was seriously ill in 2004 and up to now 2005 due to hypertension and enlargement of the heart, seldom I reported to office. I was on-leave for several months, and I have no knowledge of the missing check[s];
That realizing the fact that I can no longer cope up with my work in the office, I decided to tender my resignation last August 31, 2005 to attend to my ailing husband; and
That I respectfully request your goodness and sympathy that my resignation be approved as my terminal [leave] proceeds will be used for the medical treatment of my husband and be brought to a better medical institution. (Emphasis supplied.)
After
investigation, OAS, thru Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy
Clerk of Court and Chief of Administrative Services, submitted her report,
concluding thus:
Regarding
the lost checks, the issue on who the culprit is and who should bear full
responsibility of the wrongful and illegal act must be resolved once and for
all. Perusal of the records and the
sworn statements given by Messrs. Lanche, Jr., Makasiar and Espinola before the
investigating officers of the
This Office believes that a prima
facie presumption of malversation through
falsification of public document is committed considering the turn of the
events and the sequence and trail of the letters containing the
subject-checks. It is worth stressing
that government checks were stolen and encashed,
hence money was taken from the Government.
These facts were confirmed from the records and testimonies of the
following employees of the Court:
1. MR.
ROBERTO G. G
2. MR.
RODRIGO
3. MR.
DIOSDADO MAKASIAR who testified that as Clerk II, his job is to receive
mails/letters addressed to the Court Administrator only; that he is only
authorized to cut the edge of the mails/letters and subsequently give them all
to Ms. Esther Andres who in turn is allowed to open the mails/letters and
determines the content thereof;
4. MR.
EDUARDO ESPINOLA who stated under oath that as the one in-charge of receiving
mails containing checks from Ms. Andres who determines the contents thereof, he
maintains a list of the letter he receives from her; that right after the news
came to him that some checks were missing, he instantly looked them from his
list if those were duly recorded but found out they were not.
Taken together all their testimonies
and the circumstances, it boils down to the question of whether or not Ms.
Andres has any knowledge whatsoever of the missing paychecks issued to the late
Mr. Melliza.
Although none of them had actually seen that Ms. Andres took the
subject-checks, strong and substantial circumstantial evidence abound linking
her to the missing checks subject of the inquiry. Hence, the conclusion is inevitable that no
person other than respondent Andres could have stolen, falsified the payees’
signature, encashed the checks and misappropriated
the proceeds thereof. First, her sudden
leave of absence from work after the incident happened. Second, her failure to appear before the
investigating body of this Office regarding the missing mails case (with checks
inside). Third, her
untimely submission or tender resignation while the case is awaiting
investigation by this Office. And
lastly, her continuous unauthorized absences that made her AWOL from
office. If taken together, it leads to
one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to her, to the exclusion of all
others, as the guilty person.
The question may arise therefore as
to whether Ms. Andres was accorded the minimum requirement or measure of
procedural due process warranted under the circumstances. This Office believes it does. In administrative proceedings, the essence of
due process is simply the opportunity to explain one’s side. Such process requires notice and an
opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. One may be heard, not solely by verbal
presentation but also, and perhaps even much more creditably as it is more
practicable than oral arguments, through pleadings. In the case at bar, the basic requirement of
notice and the opportunity to explain her side were
not denied to her. The proceedings were
conducted in accordance with the procedure under pertinent laws. Records show that this Office for failure to
locate her at her city address caused the service of the summons to her
provincial address at Poblacion Norte, Maddela, Quirino
Cagayan by registered mail. Her letter dated 26 September 2005 addressed
to DCA Elepaño shows she has knowledge of the
investigation being conducted by this Office regarding her case. Indeed, if Ms. Andres has nothing to hide,
she should have responded to the invitation for investigation and exerted
efforts to clear her name. Yet, as found by this Office and based on the evidence on record
Ms. Andres failed to appear, despite notice, and refute the allegations against
her. Respondent’s refusal to
attend the scheduled hearings, despite due notice, was at her own peril. As held in Garcia vs. Pajaro
the Court said that “so long as parties are given the opportunity to explain
their side, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied
with.” In our view, Ms. Andres is deemed
to have waived the rights the law has provided her i.e., to present her
documentary and oral evidence. This
Office therefore believes that the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of
guilt in her case is substantial. In one
case Re: Loss of Extraordinary Allowance
Check of Judge Eduardo Jovellanos, the Court said
that:
“The natural reaction of an innocent
person confronted with a supposedly malicious accusation would be to face her
accuser and clear her name. By stealing
and encashing the check of Judge Jovellanos
without the latter’s knowledge and consent, respondent has shown herself unfit for the confidence and trust demanded by her
work as check-processor. Her acts
amounted to gross misconduct and dishonesty, and violated the time-honored
constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust. Her actuation is a disgrace to the judiciary
and erodes the people’s faith in the judicial system.”
The same is true in
the case of OCA vs. Sevillo, where respondent Sevillo was dismissed from the service for gross dishonesty
and grave misconduct. The Court said:
“By stealing mail matters he has
blatantly degraded the judiciary and diminished the respect and regard of the
people for the court and its personnel.
Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity,
uprightness and honesty. Lamentably,
respondent has become no better than a common thief; consequently, he does not
deserve to stay a minute longer in the judicial service.”
What Ms. Andres did
while the case is under investigation, she filed her letter of resignation and
went on AWOL (Absence Without Official Leave) from the
service. Granting but without admitting
when she said she has no knowledge of the missing checks because she was absent
and on-leave for several months on the dates the missing checks were received
by their office, how then on this point can she now explain such reasoning when
entries on her Daily Time Records (DTR) for the months of August, September
and November 2004 reveal that she was present on the dates the checks were
received by their office?
Considering the foregoing, the acts
demonstrated by her are indubitable and unequivocal indicia of her guilt. That her immediate resignation from the
service, granting it is accepted, is of no consequence
to the charge against her as it is not lost by mere resignation. Resignation should be used neither as an
escape nor as an easy way out to evade administrative liability by a court
personnel facing administrative sanction.
This Office is convinced after
examination of the records and testimonies, and left with no choice but to
treat this case against Ms. Esther T. Andres for dishonesty and grave
misconduct in stealing, encashing and converting for
her personal use the amount represented by the checks issued to the late Mr. Melliza which warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal from
the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave if
any, and perpetual disqualification for re-employment in the government
service. Further, it may be imposed
without prejudice to criminal or civil liability. This penalty is in accordance with Sections 9
and 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order
292.
Ms. Andres was given all the opportunity to answer and present her defense to the charge. Regrettably, the records show that despite receipts by Ms. Andres of the Memorandum, she has not taken any steps, reacted nor made any move to protect herself and answer the charge against her. This Office believes that Ms. Andres has been given all the opportunity to attend the scheduled investigation, present her evidence and substantiate her defense. However, she failed to do so. x x x.[16]
Consequently, she recommended the
following:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Office
respectfully recommends the following courses of action to be taken:
1.
That Ms. Esther T. Andres be found guilty of dishonesty
and grave misconduct regarding the loss of five (5) paychecks issued to the
late Mr. Melliza and encashing
the same, and be meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with
forfeiture of her retirement and all other benefits, except accrued leave
credits if any, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or
instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations and be ordered to pay the Court the amount of Eleven Thousand
Seven Hundred Sixty Three and 54/100 (P11,763.54) equivalent to the four
(4) checks she encashed for her benefit;
2.
That the following employees of the Court namely Messrs.
Rodrigo Lanche, Jr., Diosdado
Makasiar and Eduardo Espinola
of the Records Control Division, OAS-OCA be absolved from any liability as
regards the loss of five (5) paychecks issued to the late Roderick Roy P. Melliza; and
3. That the alleged overpayment of Mr. Melliza be considered waived for purposes of the death benefits being claimed by his surviving spouse as the unclaimed paychecks were proven to have been returned and sent back to the Office of the Court Administrator.[17]
We
agree in the recommendations of the OAS.
At
the initial stage of the investigation, the OAS directed Makasiar,
Lanche, Jr., and Ms. Andres to appear on
As may be gleaned from their
testimonies, their duties are as follows:
MR. RODRIGO
MR. DIOSDADO MAKASIAR, as
Clerk II, is to receive mails/letters addressed to the Court Administrator;
that he is only authorized to cut the edges of the mails/letters and subsequently
give them all to Ms. Esther Andres who in turn is allowed to open the
mails/letters and determine the content thereof.
Ms. ESTER ANDRES’ duty is to receive
and open mails/letters cut on the edge by Makasiar, determines
the contents thereof and sorts/delivers them to the office to which they are
directed. If the mails contain checks,
she would deliver them to Espinola who lists them
down in his check-list as proof of his receipt of the same.
MR. EDUARDO ESPINOLA is in-charge of
receiving mails containing checks from Ms. Andres who determines the contents
thereof. He maintains a list of the
letters he receives from her. Right
after the news came to him that some checks were missing,
he instantly looked at his list if the said letter and/or checks were duly
recorded therein but found out that they were not.
There is no question that the letter
containing the questioned checks of Mr. Melliza were
returned to OCA as shown by receipt of Lanche, Jr. from
the post office and received by the Records Division. Based on the testimonies
of Lanche, Makasiar and Espinola, it is a standard operating procedure that Makasiar cuts the edges of all letters addressed to the
Office of the Court of Administrator while respondent Andres opens them and
determine their contents. When the mails
contain checks, Andres would deliver them to Espinola
who records the receipt thereof on his list.
It appears that the checks were not listed on his list as having been
received from Andres.
Instead of appearing during the scheduled
investigation to refute the charges associating her to the loss of the checks,
respondent Andres tendered her resignation prior to the date of investigation. On
The defense of denial proferred by respondent is hardly convincing. It is settled that denial is inherently a weak
defense. To be believed, it must be
buttressed by a strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is
purely self-serving and is with nil evidentiary value.[19]
We deplore respondent’s lackadaisical
deportment from the inception of this case, when she failed to appear and
testify in the hearing. Respondent opted
to file the above-quoted delayed explanation instead of attending the
investigation. The respondent’s refusal
to face head-on the charges against her is contrary to common experience that “the
first impulse of an innocent man when accused of wrongdoing is to express his
innocence at the first opportune time.”[20]
Also, we view respondent’s act of filing her
resignation before the investigation as indicative of her guilt. Indeed, an employee’s act of tendering her
resignation immediately after the discovery of the anomalous transaction is
indicative of her guilt as flight in criminal cases.[21] And, resignation is not a way out to evade
administrative liability when a court employee is facing administrative
sanction.[22]
Lastly,
respondent Andres’s AWOL from her job since
Respondent’s
letter of resignation on 1 September 2005 and explanation in her letter dated
26 September 2005 that she tendered her resignation because she could not cope
with her work in the office as she had to attend to her ailing husband does not
work in her favor. The resignation
letter does not alter the fact that she had abandoned her office by failing to
report to work or to file the appropriate leave. Her absence without official leave, during
the investigation of the administrative case, is indicative of her guilt in the
same way as flight in criminal cases.[24]
Up
until today, Ms. Andres has not appeared before the Court nor reported back for
work. This makes her AWOL for more than a
year now which will warrant her being dropped from the rolls.
Ms.
Andres falls within the purview of Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil
Service Rules and Regulations, as amended:
Sec. 63. Effect of absences without approval leave. – An official or an employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. He shall, however, be informed, at his address appearing on his 201 files of his separation from the service, not later than five (5) days from its effectivity.
The above provision does not require
prior notice to drop from the rolls the name of the employee who has been
continuously on AWOL for at least 30 days.[25] Defying the express directive of the Court for
Ms. Andres to report back to work, she chose not to report for work since
Respondent could not even
claim that she was denied due process. She was accorded the opportunity to be
heard. She was required to answer and to
attend the investigation to adduce evidence on her behalf. She filed her answer
but she merely generally denied having received the subject checks or any other
involvement therein. The essence of due
process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. For as long as the
parties were given the opportunity to be heard before judgment was rendered,
the demand of due process were sufficiently met.[27] “To be heard” does not mean only verbal
arguments in court; one may be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through
oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due
process.[28] In this case, respondent was given ample
opportunity to be heard and to present her case.
In
fine, we find that there is substantial evidence to support respondent’s
dismissal. In administrative
proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is
substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.[29]
Well-entrenched is the
rule that substantial proof, and not clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt, is
sufficient as basis for the imposition of any disciplinary action upon the
employee. The standard of substantial
evidence is satisfied where the employer, as in this case the Court, has
reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the
misconduct and his participation therein renders him unworthy of trust and
confidence demanded by his position.[30]
While
there is no direct evidence to suggest that respondent actually stole and encashed the questioned checks, the surrounding
circumstances point towards her administrative liability. He established flow of work in the OAS-OCA
regarding mail matters received by the office; respondent Andres’s repeated
failure to appear in the investigation despite due notice to adduce evidence on
her behalf; her act of tendering resignation before the investigation of the
case; and her being AWOL since 1 September 2005, are clear indicia of her guilt. With
these, respondent has shown herself unfit for the
confidence and trust demanded by her work.
Her acts amounted to gross misconduct and dishonesty, and violated the
time honored constitutional principle that a public office is a public
trust. Her actuation is a disgrace and
erodes the people’s faith in the judicial system.
Indeed,
dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary.[31] This Court has defined dishonesty as the “(d)isposition to lie, cheat,
deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty,
probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness;
disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.[32]
Misconduct
is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden
act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper
or wrong behavior,[33]
while “gross” has been defined as “out of all measure; beyond allowance;
flagrant; shameful; such conduct as is not to be excused.”[34]
Time
and again, this Court has exhorted that any act which falls short of the
existing standards for public service, especially on the part of those expected
to preserve the image of the judiciary, shall not be countenanced. Public office is a public trust. Public officers must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost degree of responsibility,
integrity, loyalty and efficiency.
Public
service requires utmost integrity and discipline. A public servant must exhibit at all times
the highest sense of honesty and integrity for no less than the Constitution
mandates the principle that “a public office is a public trust and all public
officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.”[35] As the administration of justice is a sacred
task, the persons involved in it ought to live up to the strictest standard of
honesty and integrity.[36] Their conduct, at all times, must not only be
characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be above
suspicion. Thus, every employee of the judiciary should be an example of
integrity, uprightness and honesty.[37]
Be
it noted also that this is not the first infraction of respondent Andres. In A.M. No. 2004-40-SC, this Court found her guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of the Service and Willful Failure to Pay just debts and was meted the penalty of suspension of one
month.[38] In that case, she refused to pay her debts
despite numerous opportunities given her. Moreso, her
acts of giving the complainant therein her Automated Teller Machine (ATM) card
and Personal Identification Number (PIN) to an account which had a zero
balance; making a promissory note and later on reneging on it; verbally
promising to tender cash payment; using the OAS to make credible her verbal
promise to pay her indebtedness in cash; and issuing a check in favor of the
complainant only to tell the latter a few days later not to deposit it as a
cash payment which did not materialize, would be given instead, establish her fraudulent
and mendacious nature.
Pursuant
to Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive
Order 292, Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct, being in the nature of grave
offenses, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with
forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual
disqualification for reemployment in government service.[39]
Thus, the Court is left with no
choice but to declare respondent guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct,
which are grave offenses punishable by dismissal.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Esther Andres is
found GUILTY of Dishonesty and Gross
Misconduct. She is DISMISSED from service effective immediately, with forfeiture of
all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to
reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including
government-owned and controlled corporations.
The OAS-SC is further directed to deduct from her accrued leave credits
the amount of Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Three and 54/100 (P11,763.54) Pesos representing the face value of the four (4)
checks she encashed.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Associate Justice |
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice |
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S.
AZCUNA Associate Justice |