A.M. No. P-16-3447 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2915-P) - LUALHATI C. GUBATANGA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BALAGTAS, BULACAN COMPLAINANT, VS. RENATO V. BODOY, UTILITY WORKER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BALAGTAS, BULACAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended to the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator that respondent Renato Bodoy be dismissed for serious misconduct. [5] (Emphasis supplied) In this Court's resolution dated 23 November 2011, the investigation report submitted by EJ Francisco was referred to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation within sixty (30) days from receipt of the record. In its Memorandum dated 6 June 2013, [6] the OCA recommended that: (1) This case be re-docketed as a regular administrative case against Mr. Renato V. Bodoy, Utility Worker I, Municipal Trial Court, Balagtas, Bulacan, for Dishonesty; [and] (2) Mr. Renato V. Bodoy, Municipal Trial Court, Balagtas, Bulacan, be DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, with perpetual disqualification for re-employment in government service. The OCA agreed with the conclusions of fact and recommendation of EJ Francisco. The OCA, however, found Bodoy not guilty of grave misconduct but of dishonesty. It explained that misconduct, by uniform legal definition, is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behaviour as well as gross negligence by a public officer. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. [7] The OCA held that in this case, there is no direct connection between the performance of Bodoy's official functions as a Utility Worker I and his unauthorized withdrawal of the amount of Php60,000.00 from the trial court's bank account. This Court agrees with the observation of the OCA. It is without doubt that Bodoy is guilty of dishonesty. He made a categorical admission that he withdrew the amount of Php60,000.00 from the trial court's bank account because he was hard pressed for money. His admission was confirmed by COC Gubatanga that there was an unauthorized withdrawal from the trial court's funds, as well as, by the documents from the bank proving that such withdrawal was indeed effected. [8] It is hornbook doctrine that a judicial admission binds the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it. [9] Bodoy's act of surreptitiously withdrawing Php60,000.00 from the trial court's bank account without any stamp of authority constitutes dishonesty, which is defined as follows: [T]he disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. [10] This Court will not tolerate dishonesty. Persons involved in the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowest employee, must live up to the strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness and diligence in the public