A.M. No. P-17-3756 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.16-4634-P) - JUDGE LITA S. TOLENTINO-GENILO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ROLANDO S. PINEDA.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, if any, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government instrumentality, including government-owned and controlled corporations. It found that respondent clearly admitted to the unauthorized withdrawal and owning up to the text message he sent to complainant asking for forgiveness. The OCA concluded that the unauthorized and deceitful withdrawals by respondent amounted to gross misconduct and dishonesty. Issue WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT SHOULD BE HELD ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR GROSS MISCONDUCT AND DISHONESTY. The Court's Ruling The Court adopts and accepts the findings and recommendation of the OCA. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more garticularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. [13] It is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior and to constitute an administrative offense, the misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. [14] In order to differentiate gross misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in the former. [15] Dishonesty, on the other hand, is the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud, or betray; unworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity, or integrity in principle; and lack of fairness and straightforwardness. It is a malevolent act that makes people unfit to serve the judiciary. [16] In the case at bench, respondent committed acts that clearly constitute grave misconduct and dishonesty. As correctly found by the OCA, while respondent disputed the number of unauthorized withdrawals alleged to have been made by him, he admitted to making the withdrawal in the amount of P50,000.00 on September 27, 2016. He also acknowledged that he was the one who sent the text message to complainant, where he even sought forgiveness for his actuations. Indubitably, respondent's admission that he made a withdrawal from the account of complainant, without the latter's consent, coupled with his apology that he did it because he has gambling addiction, indicates deliberate intent to commit serious infraction. The foregoing undeniably shows that respondent deviated from the norm of conduct required of a court employee. Since the Court cannot and should not tolerate the wrongdoings of its employee, herein respondent must be sanctioned for the unlawful acts he committed. Verily, he should be dismissed from service. There is no place in the judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity. [17] This is because the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the le