A.M. No. P-08-2579 - ODALINE B. NARAG, COMPLAINANT, VS. MARITESS R. MANIO, COURT INTERPRETER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TUGUEGARAO CITY, BRANCH 4.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly asked for a 50% down payment thereof. Complainant readily gave P20,000 as partial payment and made respondent sign an acknowledgment receipt [4] for the said amount. After the Holy Week, complainant kept calling respondent at the RTC Branch 4 to follow up the status of her sister's petition but the latter was always absent. On April 30, 2004, an employee of the RTC informed complainant by phone that respondent was no longer reporting for work. Complainant then tried to see respondent at her residence but she was nowhere to be found. Complainant's complaint-affidavit was corroborated by her officemates, Wandag and Ma. Lourdes H. Golino [5] , who executed their own separate sworn statements. Respondent, on the other hand, failed to file her comment despite personal receipt of the 1 st Tracer of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) [6] on February 22, 2005. [7] During the pendency of this case, respondent was found (in another case) guilty of conduct unbecoming a court employee for which she was reprimanded with a warning that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely. [8] And in yet another administrative complaint, [9] she was again found liable for dishonesty and grave misconduct for which she was dismissed from the service. Furthermore, in a resolution dated November 17, 2004, this Court dropped respondent from the rolls for absence without official leave (AWOL) since March 1, 2004. On the basis of the pleadings and documents presented by complainant, the OCA submitted its memorandum finding respondent administratively liable for dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a court employee. It recommended respondent's dismissal from the service effective November 17, 2004 with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in the government service. We agree with the OCA that respondent's acts constituted dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a court employee. They also fell within the purview of grave misconduct. Dishonesty [10] and grave misconduct, respectively, are classified as grave offenses punishable by dismissal for the first offense under Section 52 (A)(1) and (3) [11] of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Civil Service Rules). [12] Respondent's guilt is unmistakable. As a public servant, nothing less than the highest sense of honesty and integrity is expected of her at all times. [13] She should be the personification of the principle that public office is a public trust. Regrettably, she fell extremely short of the standards which should have governed her life as a public servant. By soliciting money from complainant, she committed an act of serious impropriety which tarnished the honor and dignity of the judiciary and deeply affected the people's confidence in it. She committed the ultimate betrayal of the duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the judiciary by peddling influence to