A.M. No. P-16-3505 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4134-P] - ZENMOND D. DUQUE, COMPLAINANT, VS. CESAR C. CALPO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 16, CAVITE CITY.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly found respondent guilty of grave misconduct and recommended his dismissal from service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government service. The OCA subscribed to the findings of the investigating judge that respondent's act of receiving money from a litigant to facilitate the annulment of his marriage amounted to grave misconduct. The OCA further explained that respondent, as a court stenographer, was not authorized to collect or receive any amount of money from any litigant. The act of collecting or receiving money from a litigant constituted grave misconduct in office. 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 particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. [9] 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. [10] In order to differentiate gross misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, and not a mere error of judgment, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in the former. [11] On the other hand, dishonesty means "a 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." [12] Respondent's actuations clearly demonstrate an intent to violate the law or a persistent disregard of well-known rules. [13] Respondent deceived complainant into believing he had the power to obtain an annulment order in complainant's favor. Receiving money from complainant, on the consideration that he can obtain a favorable decision from the court, falsifying a court decision, and forging the signature of the trial court judge, undeniably constitute grave misconduct and serious dishonesty. A public servant is expected to exhibit, at all times, the highest degree of honesty and integrity and should be made accountable to all those whom he serves. [14] The same principle applies from the judge to the least and lowest of the judiciary's employees and personnel. [15] Unfortunately, respondent failed to exact the same integrity, propriety, decorum, and honesty. Without a doubt, therefore, respondent patently committed grave misconduct and dishonesty. Sec. 46, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, promulgated on November 8, 2011, classifies grave misconduct and serious dishonesty as grave offenses. [16] Accordingly, the imposable penalty for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty is the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. S