A.M. No. P-25-273 [Formerly JIB FPI No. 23-292-P] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. SHERYL S. MEDINA, UTILITY WORKER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, ABUCAY, BATAAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, be dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned and controlled corporations. In recommending these penalties, the Acting Executive Director did not appreciate any mitigating circumstance in her favor. The Resolution of the JIB In its Resolution, [12] the JIB adopted all the findings and recommendations of the Acting Executive Director, finding them well-taken and in order. The Issue Discernibly, the pith of the issue lies in whether Medina should be held administratively liable for gross misconduct and serious dishonesty. The Court's Ruling Upon judicious rumination, the Court gives imprimatur to the findings and recommendation of the JIB, albeit with modification as to the prescribed penalty . In no uncertain terms, the Constitution provides that "public office is a public trust," and "public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency." [13] This mandate applies to all public officers, including court employees. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Isip, Sheriff IV, RTC, OCC, City of San Fernando, Pampanga , [14] the Court eruditely stressed the role, duty, and mission of court employees in this wise: It must be stressed that all court employees must exercise at all times a high degree of professionalism and responsibility, as service in the Judiciary is not only a duty but also a mission. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that everyone in the judiciary, from the presiding judge to the clerk, must always be beyond reproach, free of any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. 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." As the administration of justice is a sacred task, the persons involved in it ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity. Their conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be above suspicion. Thus, every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty. [15] (Citations omitted) Medina's conduct must be measured against these exacting standards. It bears stressing that the quantum of evidence required in administrative cases, such as the present case, is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. [16] In Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Reyes , [17] the Court expounded on this standard of proof as follows: One of the nuances of the law on judicial