Case Digest (A.M. No. P-22-072)
Case Digest (A.M. No. P-22-072)
Facts:
In Executive Judge Jackie B. Crisologo-Saguisag v. Edith P. Haboc, A.M. No. P-22-072 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-4870-P], April 18, 2023, the Supreme Court En Banc, Zalameda, J., writing for the Court, resolved an administrative complaint against a court clerk arising from criminal convictions.The complainant was Executive Judge Jackie B. Crisologo-Saguisag of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City; the respondent was Edith P. Haboc, Clerk III, MeTC Branch 62. The matter originated with a letter dated 19 September 2017 from Presiding Judge Ma. Concepcion A. Billones of Branch 62 reporting an irregularity in Criminal Case No. 377282 (People v. Cynthia Balaoro), where a supposed cash payment to settle the case could not be accounted for and the accused manifested that she coursed payments through respondent Haboc. Judge Billones referred the matter to Judge Crisologo-Saguisag for appropriate action because Haboc was no longer assigned to Branch 62.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received Judge Billones’ letter on 24 October 2017 and, by letter dated 7 November 2017, directed Judge Crisologo-Saguisag to investigate and recommend. Judge Crisologo-Saguisag submitted a confidential letter-report dated 18 January 2018 finding that Haboc had received cash deposits from Balaoro and concluding that such conduct interfered with the proper performance of her official duties. The report also noted that Haboc had previously been convicted in Criminal Cases Nos. 363253–55 for three counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), had applied for probation instead of appealing, and had been dropped from the rolls effective 2 November 2017.
The OCA-Legal Office, in a memorandum dated 6 September 2018, concluded that Haboc’s transactions with Balaoro—on the record—could be explained as an isolated, one-time loan and did not necessarily warrant administrative discipline for those transactions; however, it found Haboc’s prior BP 22 convictions sufficient basis to file an administrative complaint and recommended that Haboc be required to comment. The Court Administrator approved the recommendation and the OCA directed Haboc to comment, with a tracer dated 28 May 2019 reiterating the directive. Haboc did not file a comment and the case was submitted for resolution.
The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), in a Report dated 5 October 2022 (penned by Justice Sesinando E. Villon, Ret.), recommended re-docketing the administrative matter against Haboc and finding her administratively liable for being convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; the JIB recommended forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government. The JIB explained that commission of a crime involving moral turpitude is a serious charge punishable under applicable administrative rules and cited prior jurisprudence holding BP 22 to be such a crime.
The Supreme Court, acting on the administrative case, agreed with the JIB’s findings and recommendations and imposed forfeiture of retirement and other benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from re-employment, noting Haboc had already been dropped from the rolls. The Court relied on prior rulings that BP 22 is a crime involving moral turpitude and on the amendments to Rule 140 (A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC) enumerating serious charges and sanctions. The decision records that Chief Justice Gesmundo and a majority of Justices concurred; Justice Marquez took no part.
Issues:
- Should respondent Edith P. Haboc be held administratively liable for her conviction of three counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, a crime involving moral turpitude?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)