A.M. No. P-20-4042 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-4624-P) - MARIA IRISH B. VALDEZ,* COMPLAINANT,VS. ANDREW B. ALVIAR, SHERIFF IV AND RICARDO P. TAPAN, STENOGRAPHER III, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 76, QUEZON CITY E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly be dismissed from the service. As to Tapan, the Report pointed out that there was no clear showing that he had received any share of the money given by Valdez and it recommended that Tapan be found guilty of simple misconduct punishable with suspension for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. In a Memorandum [11] dated September 25, 2019, the OCA adopted the findings of fact in the Report of Executive Judge Villavert and recommended that (i) Alviar be found administratively liable for grave misconduct punishable by dismissal , and (ii) Tapan be found administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense. However, after noting several circumstances that should be appreciated in favor of Tapan, the OCA recommended that his penalty be reduced to one (1) month suspension instead. The Court adopts and affirms the findings of fact and recommendations of the OCA with modification as to the penalties imposed . At the outset, the procedural issue raised by both Tapan and Alviar that the person who filed the complaint, Valdez's mother, was not a real party-in-interest in this case and had no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding Valdez's complaint - is unmeritorious. For one, Valdez had affirmed and confirmed the contents of her Letter of Complaint during the hearing conducted by Executive Judge Villavert, thus, the allegations therein were no longer hearsay. Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the OCA, jurisprudence [12] dictates that the issue in administrative cases is not whether the complainant has a cause of action against the respondent , but whether the employee concerned has breached the norms and standards of the judiciary. Thus, the fact that Valdez was not the one who filed the complaint is irrelevant in the case at bar. Moving on to the substantial issues, the Court finds that Alviar is guilty of grave misconduct. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. [13] The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the la w , or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence. [14] Under the 2011 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2011 RRACCS), grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal from service for the first offense. [15] In Pinlac v. Llamas [16] (Pinlac) , the Court found the respondent therein guilty of grave misconduct for offering assistance and introducing the complainant to the surveyor to facilitate the titling of the property. The discussion on why the said respondent was held liable for grave misconduct is instructive, viz