A.M. No. P-22-058 [Formerly JIB FPI No. 22-087-P] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. CHARLIBETH P. SICAD, CLERK III, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the penalty of dismissal from the service is justified under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as further amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC. [18] Report and Recommendation of the JIB In its Report [19] dated April 26, 2023, the JIB partly adopted the recommendation of Atty. Navarrete, finding respondent liable for gross misconduct constituting violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, serious dishonesty, and commission of a crime involving moral turpitude, viz. : WHEREFORE, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED to the Honorable Supreme Court that Charlibeth P. Sicad, Clerk III, Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Makati City, be found guilty of gross misconduct constituting a violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, serious dishonesty, and commission of a crime involving moral turpitude, and be DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of her benefits except earned leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled-corporations. [20] As for respondent's noncompliance with the OED-JIB's directive to submit a comment in the case, the JIB held that it was sufficient that in its Report [21] dated March 15, 2023, respondent's right to participate in the proceedings was already deemed waived. Thus, respondent should not be held administratively liable anymore for violation of the Court's directive to file her comment in the case. [22] As for the theft incident, the JIB found that there was substantial evidence to reasonably conclude that the amount of PHP 277,000.00 was taken from the money drawer and it was respondent who did it. Verily, the taking of money from the court's collection was a flagrant violation of the law. Thus, respondent should be held liable for gross misconduct constituting a violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. Too, since respondent committed theft, which is malum in se , she should be held administratively liable for serious dishonesty. Lastly, although respondent enjoyed the constitutional presumption of innocence in the criminal case for theft and there was no final judgment yet, there was substantial evidence to hold her administratively liable for commission of a crime involving moral turpitude. [23] Our Ruling We adopt in full the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the JIB. Time and again, the Court has stressed that no position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than a judicial office. [24] Those connected with the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowliest clerk, carry a heavy burden of responsibility. [25] As frontliners in the administration of justice, they should live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity. They must bear in mind that the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the people who work there. [26] Thus, the Court