EN BANC
A.M. No. P-15-3296 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-4364-P], February 17, 2015
ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST REYNALDO C. ALCANTARA, UTILITY WORKER I, BR. 70, AND JOSEPH C. JACINTO, ELECTRICIAN, HALL OF JUSTICE, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BURGOS, PANGASINAN
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
(1) | Roger Ginez (Ginez), Junior Process Server, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Burgos, Pangasinan, executed an affidavit pointing to Alcantara as the one who stole his two (2) salary checks amounting to P8,792.38, which covered the month of June 2009.7 According to Ginez, Alcantara later confessed that he was the one who stole the checks. The incident was recorded in the blotter of the Philippine National Police, Burgos, Pangasinan;8 |
(2) | In May 2012, Annie Lyn R. Tugade (Tugade), then Officer-in- Charge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Burgos, Pangasinan, lost her representation and transportation allowance check in the amount of P8,000.00 for May 2012.9 She initially instructed Jacinto to verify the status of the check with the Checks Releasing Division of the Supreme Court.10 Jacinto allegedly informed Tugade that the check was not ready. However, she discovered that her check for May was already released and sent through mail by the Supreme Court.11 Bank records revealed that Tugade's signature was forged on July 30, 2012.12 Alcantara and Jacinto admitted to receiving and encashing Tugade's check without her permission;13 |
(3) | Imelda Bruto Espanol (Espanol), Construction and Maintenance General Foreman, Hall of Justice, Burgos, Pangasinan averred that Alcantara and Jacinto stole and illegally encashed several checks. A check for P790.00, which was due to one of the contractors of the Hall of Justice but was issued under Espanol's name, was illegally encashed by Alcantara.15 Another check, in the amount of P4,724.00 and in Espanol's name, was taken and encashed by Alcantara and Jacinto without her consent.16 Espanol's signature appeared to have been forged on June 21, 2012;17 and |
(4) | Edwin Naval (Naval), Utility Worker, Hall of Justice, Burgos, Pangasinan, also alleged that Alcantara and Jacinto stole his salary check and encashed it at the bank through forgery. Naval, however, claimed that Alcantara and Jacinto had refunded him the amount taken.18 |
It could not be denied that they were the ones who committed these serious misconduct [sic] having admitted in the presence of their victims and. . . in the presence of Judge Aguilar, that they either stole or received their co-employee's checks without proper authorization and encashed them without the owner[s'] consent and us[ed] the cash proceeds for their own personal use and benefit to the detriment of their co-workers who are the owners of the checks.
It is likewise very clear that the checks were encashed in another bank. . . forging the signatures of the payees.19cralawlawlibrary
In the case at bar, the acts of respondents Alcantara and Jacinto clearly amounted to dishonesty and grave misconduct. Respondent Alcantara admitted to stealing and encashing the checks of Tugade and Espanol and put up the lame excuse that he was forced to do it because of his dire financial situation at the time. The explanation of respondent Jacinto is even more absurd. He slaimed that he had no idea that the checks were stolen but he admitted receiving proceeds from the scheme and allotting them to his personal needs.
Under Rule 9, Section 46 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service, promulgated on 18 November 2011, Serious Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from service even on the first offense. As correctly pointed by Executive Judge Abella, respondents Alcantara and Jacinto committed grave offenses and "do not deserve to stay with the judiciary even for a minute longer."31cralawlawlibrary
we have not hesitated to impose the ultimate penalty. This Court had never and will never tolerate nor condone any conduct which would violate the norms of public accountability, and diminish, or even tend to diminish, the faith of the people in the justice system.38cralawlawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Rollo, p. 1.
2 Id.
3 Id. at 5.
4 Id. at 1, 10-11 and 26.
5 Id. at 15.
6 Id. at 12.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 12 and 17.
9 Id. at 12.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 13.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 13-14.
5 Id. at 13.
6 Id. at 14.
17 Id.
18 Id.
9 Id. at 15.
20 Id. at 29-30.
21 Id. at 32.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id. at 33.
26 Id. at 35.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id. at 36.
30 Id. at 4.
31 Id. at 3-4.
32Judge Corpuz v. Ramiterre, et al., 512 Phil. 506, 518 (2005) [Per Curiam, En Bane], citing Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, et al., 502 Phil. 264 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc]; Office of the Court Administrator v. Yan, 496 Phil. 843 (2005) [Per Curiam, En Banc]; Alabastro v. Moncada, Sr., 488 Phil. 43 (2004) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
33 See Alconera v. Pallanan, A.M. No. P-12-3069, January 20, 2014 714 SCRA204, 217 [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division], citing Tan v. Quitorio, A.M. No. P-11-2919, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 12 [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division],
34 A.M. No. P-l0-2867, June 19, 2012, 673 SCRA 592 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
35441 Phil. 261 (2002) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
36Cabanatan v. Molina, 421 Phil. 664, 676 (2001) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
Classification of Offenses - Administrative Offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
A. The following grave offenses shall be punishable by dismissal from the service:
1. Serious Dishonesty;
2. Gross Neglect of Duty;
3. Grave Misconduct;
4. Being Notoriously Undesirable;
5. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
6. Falsification of official document;
7. Physical or mental incapacity or disability due to immoral or vicious habits[.] ...
38Office of the Court Administrator v. Bernardino, el al, 490 Phil. 500, 532 (2005) [Per Curiam, En Banc].