Title
Abella vs. Parfan
Case
A.M. No. P-21-030
Decision Date
Apr 5, 2022
Court stenographer misappropriated settlement funds, failed to remit payments, and disappeared, leading to a finding of gross misconduct, forfeiture of benefits, and perpetual disqualification from government service.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-21-030)

Facts:

Background of the Case

  • Complainants Rowell E. Abella and Ruben De Ocampo filed separate administrative complaints against respondent Teodora P. Parfan, a Court Stenographer III at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 59, Lucena City.
  • The complaints stemmed from Parfan's alleged mishandling of settlement payments in a criminal case (Frustrated Homicide) involving Abella and De Ocampo's son, Renato De Ocampo.

Settlement Agreement

  • The presiding judge, Judge Dinah Evangeline Bandong, advised the parties to settle the case amicably.
  • Parfan, known as "Tita Dory," facilitated the settlement, agreeing that Abella would pay De Ocampo a total of P72,000.00 in installments of P5,000.00 every two months.

Payments and Misappropriation

  • On 18 September 2013, Abella made an initial payment of P5,000.00, which De Ocampo acknowledged.
  • On 27 November 2013, De Ocampo received only P4,000.00, with Parfan assuring him the balance would be added to the next payment.
  • Over time, De Ocampo received only P14,000.00, despite Abella claiming to have paid a total of P40,000.00 to Parfan.
  • Parfan later suggested "magkwentahan na lang tayo" (let’s just settle the accounts) and disappeared.
  • On another occasion, Parfan’s child handed De Ocampo P5,000.00, after which communication ceased.

Administrative Proceedings

  • Parfan was repeatedly ordered to comment on the allegations but failed to comply.
  • She was dropped from the rolls effective 2 February 2015 for being absent without official leave.
  • The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended holding Parfan liable for simple misconduct and imposing a fine of P5,000.00.

Issue:

  1. Is Parfan guilty of simple misconduct only?
  2. What law or rule should be applied in imposing the appropriate offense and penalty?

Ruling:

The Court modified the OCA’s findings and ruled that Parfan is guilty of gross misconduct.

  • Misconduct Defined: Misconduct is a transgression of established rules, particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. For it to be considered grave, it must involve corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of established rules.
  • Parfan’s Liability: Parfan’s actions, including her failure to remit payments and her subsequent disappearance, demonstrated corruption and a willful disregard of her duties. Her conduct was directly connected to her official functions as a court stenographer.
  • Penalty: The Court imposed a fine of P105,000.00, with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government.

Ratio:

  1. Gross Misconduct: Parfan’s actions constituted gross misconduct under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended. Her misuse of her official position to misappropriate funds was a serious violation of her duties and the trust reposed in her as a court employee.
  2. Application of Rule 140: The Court applied Rule 140 retroactively, as it was not prejudicial to Parfan. The rule classifies gross misconduct as a serious charge punishable by dismissal or a fine of more than P100,000.00 but not exceeding P200,000.00.
  3. Public Trust: The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining public trust in the judiciary. Court employees must uphold the highest standards of integrity, and any conduct that undermines this trust warrants severe penalties.

Conclusion:

The Court found Parfan guilty of gross misconduct and imposed a fine of P105,000.00, with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from government service. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding integrity and accountability among its personnel.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.