A.M. No. P-15-3391 - IN RE: Garduce

On November 16, 2012, Executive Judge Brigido Artemon M. Luna II of the RTC, Branch 196, transmitted a letter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) along with an Incident Report dated November 5, 2012.
The Incident Report was authored by Atty. Jerry R. Toledo, Clerk of Court VI of the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), RTC, detailing irregularities in the processing of a bail bond.

On October 25, 2012, private complainants Marie Andrea Alarilla and Gwen Marie Lachica arranged for Rosemarie U. Garduce, a Clerk III at the OCC, to process the bail bond for their father, who was facing a pending criminal case before the RTC, Branch 196.
The complainants initially paid P2,000.00 at around 9:00 a.m. at the OCC and later, around 1:00 p.m., met Garduce at Jollibee, San Antonio Valley I, where they handed an additional P21,000.00.
A discrepancy arose when the receipt issued for their combined payment stated only P20,500.00, creating confusion and suspicion regarding the proper handling of the funds.

By around 4:00 p.m. on the same day, the complainants discovered that their motion for processing the bail bond was denied.
They then demanded a refund of their total payment amounting to P23,000.00 from Garduce, who refused to return the money.
The matter escalated when the complainants brought Garduce to the Parañaque City Police Station, where she invoked her right to remain silent.

On October 27, 2012, the Parañaque City Prosecutor conducted an inquest proceeding and determined there was probable cause to indict Garduce for the crime of Estafa.
The OCA, acting on the complaint, issued its 1st Indorsement on December 3, 2012, directing Garduce to file a comment on the complaint within ten (10) days.
Garduce’s failure to respond led to the issuance of a 1st Tracer on May 28, 2013, which again reiterated the order to comment, giving her an additional five (5) days.
Despite these repeated directives, Garduce continued to default on her obligation to respond to the administrative inquiry.

Following the evaluation of the incident and Garduce’s noncompliance, the OCA recommended re-docketing the matter as a regular administrative case.
The recommendation further proposed finding Garduce guilty of grave misconduct and willful violation of the Court’s rules, directives, and circulars.
The recommended penalty included dismissal from service with the forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and disqualification from reemployment in any government office.

Whether Garduce’s conduct in accepting money from litigants for processing a bail bond constituted a violation of the ethical norms stated in Section 2, Canon I and Section 2(e), Canon III of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
Whether the acceptance of the funds, despite the intended purpose not being fulfilled, amounts to misconduct undermining public accountability.

Whether the failure of Garduce to comply with the directives of the OCA to file a comment on the complaint justifies the re-docketing of the matter as a regular administrative case.
Whether the proposed penalty of dismissal, with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from reemployment, is the proper administrative sanction for the gravity of the misconduct.

How the ruling in Villahermosa, Sr. v. Sarcia, which categorically stated that “the sole act of receiving money from litigants” is incompatible with the responsibilities of a court employee, applies in this case.
Whether mitigating circumstances may be considered in tempering the penalty or if the gravity of the offense necessitates strict sanctions under Section 46(A)(3), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.