A.M. No. P-15-3290 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. GARY G. FUENSALIDA, UTILITY WORKER I, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SORSOGON CITY, SORSOGON.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Clerk of Court Valino requested the OCA for an action on the matter because she fears that Fuensalida will repeat the same whilst being absent without official leave. In his Comment, [8] Fuensalida admitted that he stole and encashed Toledo's check. Fuensalida claimed he was tempted to steal the check of Toledo due to financial distress that his family was experiencing during that time. According to Fuensalida, he had too many monetary obligations that included many debts and school fees of his five (5) children. Fuensalida expressed his deep remorse for the offense he committed and manifested that his liability to the parties involved were already being settled. Lastly, Fuensalida appealed for compassion and promised the Court that the incident will never happen again. The OCA's Report and Recommendation In a Memorandum [9] dated October 17, 2014, the OCA recommended that: (a) the instant administrative matter be re-docketed as a regular administrative complaint against respondent Gary G. Fuensalida; (b) respondent Fuensalida be found guilty of Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty; and (c) respondent Fuensalida be dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of all the benefits except accrued leave credits and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. [10] The OCA found that the act of Fuensalida of stealing and encashing the check payable to Toledo without the latter's authority constituted grave misconduct and was also considered as serious dishonesty. According to the OCA, even assuming that Fuensalida did not admit to the charge, there was substantial evidence to hold him liable. The OCA pointed out that Fuensalida's admission of guilt and subsequent explanation cannot exculpate him from liability as none of these defenses can free him from the consequences of his wrongdoing, which was duly established by PCI Villanueva. Issue Whether or not Fuensalida should be administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty. The Court's Ruling The Court adopts the findings and the recommendation of the OCA. It must be emphasized that those in the Judiciary serve as sentinels of justice, and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and the people's confidence in it. The Institution demands the best possible individuals in the service and it 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. As such, the Court will not hesitate to rid its ranks of undesirables who undermine its efforts towards an effective and efficient administration of justice, thus tainting its image in the eyes of the public. [11] In this case, it was established that Fuensalida was an accountable officer, being the custodian of all the property and financi