Case Digest (A.M. No. P-93-822)
Facts:
In the case of A.C. No. P-93-822, Atty. Edwin Betguen and others filed a complaint against Dominga P. Masangcay, a Clerk IV at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabarroguis, Quirino, for dishonesty, grave misconduct, conviction of an offense, and unauthorized absences. The complaint stemmed from Masangcay's alleged concealment of records related to her own criminal case, C.A.-G.R. No. 10643, titled "People of the Philippines vs. Dominga P. Masangcay," where she was convicted of intriguing against honor. The criminal complaints against her were filed in 1986 by Jovita G. Cabanag and Luz Ancheta, leading to her conviction and a fine of P200.00, along with an order to indemnify the complainants P5,000.00 each. This conviction was upheld by the RTC and later by the Court of Appeals.
On November 18, 1991, the records of her case were remanded to the RTC, but when Cabanag and Ancheta inquired about their case status in 1993, they discovered that the records were mi...
Case Digest (A.M. No. P-93-822)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- Respondent Dominga P. Masangcay, Clerk IV of the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC Cabarroguis, Quirino, was accused of grave oral defamation in Criminal Case Nos. 901 and 902 filed by Jovita G. Cabanag and Luz Ancheta in 1986.
- She was convicted of intriguing against honor under Article 364 of the Revised Penal Code and fined P200.00, with an order to indemnify the complainants P5,000.00 each. This conviction was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals.
Loss of Case Records
- The records of the case (C.A.-G.R. No. 10643) were remanded to the RTC Clerk of Court on November 18, 1991, via registered mail (Registry Receipt No. P-5007).
- On November 27, 1991, respondent allegedly received the parcel containing the records from Betty Nasto, a Post Office employee, as evidenced by her signature on the registry book.
- However, the records were never logged in the RTC’s logbook or found in the court’s custody. The loss was discovered when the complainants inquired about the status of their case.
Administrative Charges
- Complainant Atty. Edwin Betguen, Clerk of Court, issued a memorandum requiring respondent to explain the loss of the records. Respondent denied responsibility, claiming she indorsed the records to Atty. Betguen, who denied receiving them.
- Respondent was also charged with unauthorized absences from March 18 to May 31, 1993. She submitted belated sick leave applications and a medical certificate, but these were deemed insufficient to justify her prolonged absence.
Respondent’s Defense
- Respondent admitted her conviction for intriguing against honor but denied concealing the records. She claimed she was unaware the parcel contained her case records and blamed Atty. Betguen for the loss.
- She also accused her co-employees and superiors of conspiring against her, but these allegations were denied as baseless.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Dishonesty and Gross Misconduct:
- Respondent’s receipt of the parcel containing the case records was proven by her signature on the Post Office registry book and the testimony of the postal clerk.
- Her claim of indorsing the records to Atty. Betguen was unsubstantiated, and her motive to conceal the records (to avoid the promulgation of her conviction) was evident.
- Her actions violated the confidentiality and integrity of court records, constituting gross misconduct and dishonesty.
Unauthorized Absences:
- Respondent’s sick leave applications were belated and improperly addressed to the Executive Judge instead of her immediate supervisor, Atty. Betguen.
- The medical certificate she submitted only covered one day of treatment and did not justify her two-and-a-half-month absence.
Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude:
- Intriguing against honor, defined under Article 364 of the Revised Penal Code, is a crime involving moral turpitude as it involves baseness and vileness in social duties.
- Under Section 22(e) of the Omnibus Rules, conviction for such a crime warrants dismissal from service.
Aggravating Circumstances:
- Respondent’s prior violation of Administrative Order No. 3 (failure to raffle an Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage) and her persona non grata status among court personnel further demonstrated her unfitness for public service.
The Court emphasized that respondent’s actions not only aggravated her initial predicament but also undermined the integrity of the judicial system.