SECOND DIVISION
A.M. No. P-16-3616 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 15-4457-P], June 21, 2017
ATTY. PROSENCIO D. JASO, Complainant, v. GLORIA L. LONDRES, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 258, PARAÑAQUE CITY, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Before the Court is an Affidavit-Complaint,1 dated July 13, 2015, filed by Atty. Prosencio D. Jaso (Atty. Jaso), against Gloria L. Londres (Londres), Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 258, Parañaque City (RTC), for dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a court personnel.
In his affidavit-complaint, Atty. Jaso alleged as follows:
B] Complainant personally knows the respondent for several years being a resident of Parañaque City and a practicing lawyer. That on the time material to this case, I have a pending case before Branch 258, RTC, Parañaque City;In her Comment-Affidavit,3 Londres admitted borrowing money from Atty. Jaso but denied using her position as court stenographer in order to obtain the loan. She further denied failing to pay her obligation and submitted copies of the deposit slips to prove that she was actually paying her obligation. She averred that after obtaining the loan, she immediately paid P3,000.00 as part of the stipulated interest and that she had always dealt with Atty. Jaso with utmost candor and had always been honest with him about the reasons for her failure to pay her debt. According to Londres, her financial trouble was caused by the sickness of her sister-in-law, who was diagnosed with lung cancer and eventually died, and that of her father who also got sick and died on December 22, 2014.
C] Sometime in November 2013, respondent approached and conveyed to me [outside of the court room of Branch 258] that she has just bought a brand new Isuzu vehicle and she needs the amount of One Hundred Thousand (Php100,000.00) Pesos relative to her Application for Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience with the LTFRB. She promised to pay me on March 30, 2014.
D] I conveyed to her that I will talk first to my wife if we have available money. Respondent made a series of calls to follow up and in the process, I asked her to come to our office in Makati City.
E] On November 27, 2013, respondent came to my office and I handed to her the amount of One Hundred Thousand (Php100,000.00) Pesos. Respondent executed a Promissory Note and issued BPI Check No. 0009119 postdated March 30, 2014. Copy of the Promissory Note and BPI Check No. 0009119 are hereto attached, marked as Annexes "A" and "B";
F] Before the check's due date, respondent called me not to deposit the same because her funds with the Bank is insufficient to cover the amount and that she will just pay me in cash. Due to her pleas, I did not deposit the check;
G] Months had elapsed and turned into years, respondent miserably failed to pay her obligation despite formal and written demands. A copy of the demand letter is hereto attached as Annex "C";
3. Respondent made several promises to pay, but up to this point in time, she failed to comply despite repeated personal demands. Respondent continued to refuse to pay a just debt.2
The Court cannot overstress the need for circumspect and proper behavior on the part of court employees. While it may be just for an individual to incur indebtedness unrestrained by the fact that he is a public officer or employee, caution should be taken to prevent the occurrence of dubious circumstances that might inevitably impair the image of the public office. Employees of the court should always keep in mind that the court is regarded by the public with respect. Consequently, the conduct of each court personnel should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of onus and must at all times be characterized by, among other things, uprightness, propriety and decorum. The respondent failed to meet this exacting standard. Her actuation, although arising from a private transaction, has stained the image of her public office. Like any member of the Judiciary, the respondent is expected to be a model of fairness and honesty not only in all her official conduct but also in her personal actuations, including business and commercial transactions. Any conduct that would be a bane to the public trust and confidence reposed on the Judiciary shall not be countenanced.11In this case, Londres could not have borrowed money from Atty. Jaso and the latter would not have lend her money were it not for her position in the court. Her act of contracting a loan from a lawyer, who had a pending case before the court, and her subsequent failure to pay the same should not be countenanced.
Endnotes:
** Per Special Order No. 2445 dated June 16, 2017.
1Rollo, pp. 1-4.
2 Id. at 1-2.
3 Id. at 9-11.
4 Id. at 13-15.
5Catungal v. Fernandez, 511 Phil. 170, 173 (2008).
6Rollo, p. 5.
7 BPI Check No. 0009119, id. at 6.
8 Id. at 12.
9Tan v. Sermonia, 612 Phil. 314, 321 (2009).
10 493 Phil 1 (2005).
11 Id. at 11-12.
12Adtani v. Manio, 555 Phil. 211, 212 (2007).
13Reliways, Inc. v. Rosales, 553 Phil. 711, 715 (2007).