Case Digest (A.M. No. P-19-3916)
Facts:
Anonymous v. Jessica Maxilinda A. Ibarreta, A.M. No. P-19-3916 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 17-4710-P), 853 Phil. 498; 116 O.G. No. 37, 5708 (September 14, 2020), Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.The complaint began with an anonymous call received by the Office of the Ombudsman at about 2:00 p.m. on January 7, 2016, alleging that Sheriff Jessica Maxilinda A. Ibarreta (respondent), Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City, Branch 36, displayed wealth disproportionate to her salary, ran a money-lending business charging excessive interest (locally known as “5–6”), and used her influence with RTC judges to obtain special preference. Assistant Ombudsman Joselito P. Fangon indorsed the matter on January 8, 2016, and the Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
The OCA referred the matter to Executive Judge Timoteo A. Panga, Jr., of the RTC for investigation; Judge Panga submitted a partial report and, upon re-designation of the executive judge, Judge Manuel M. Rosales continued the inquiry and submitted his own report. The investigating judges documented that respondent’s assets (a house and two vehicles) were declared in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, that she had an annulled marriage and two college-aged dependents studying in Naga City, and that there were no complaints about her performance as sheriff; they also reported that respondent ran a money-lending business charging up to ten percent (10%) per month and allegedly conducted such lending during office hours.
In an OCA Memorandum dated May 24, 2017, respondent was cleared of the allegation of acquisition of ill-gotten wealth but the OCA found prima facie evidence of Simple Misconduct for engaging in money-lending activities during office hours and devoting official time to proprietary pursuits; it recommended docketing the matter for preliminary inquiry and requiring respondent to comment. In her Comment dated August 4, 2017, respondent denied the ill-gotten wealth charge and stated that the lending business had belonged to her late mother and was discontinued when her mother died.
The OCA’s Report and Recommendation dated November 6, 2018 recommended that respondent be found guilty of Simple Misconduct for violating Reasonable Rules and Regulations and Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC) and Administrative Circular No. 5 (October 4, 1988); the OCA recommended a P5,000 fine and directed respondent to cease and desist from lending activities, warning of sterner consequences for noncompliance. The OCA relied on the principle that court personnel must devote full time to court duties and that moonlighting—especia...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should respondent be held administratively liable for engaging in money-lending activities during office hours in violation of applicable rules for court pers...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)