A.M. No. 03-3-179-RTC, 03-10-576-RTC - Withholding of the Salary and Benefits of Michael A. Latiza

A criminal case for violation of Section 16, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425 (Criminal Case No. CBU-50474) was pending before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 14.
During the proceedings, P118,040 was presented as evidence, kept in an attaché case stored in the court’s cabinet.
Upon counting by Court Interpreter Alicia Caburnay in the presence of the accused Danilo Ceniza’s wife and his counsel, only P93,240 was found inside the attaché case, revealing a shortage of P24,800.

The shortage was immediately reported by Caburnay to Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Aurora Ventura-Villamor and Legal Researcher Teotimo Vallar II.
Court Aide Michael Latiza, who used the court premises as a sleeping quarter, was informed by Presiding Judge Rafael Yrastorza.
Latiza admitted that he allowed outsiders to stay in the courtroom overnight and further admitted liability for the loss, offering to pay the missing amount.
On subsequent occasions, despite being called to Judge Yrastorza’s chambers in the presence of other court personnel, he reiterated his admission and offer to pay.

Following his unexplained absence without leave (AWOL) since 10 February 2003, and his involvement in the loss of evidence, administrative actions were initiated.
On 18 February 2003, Atty. Ventura-Villamor reported Latiza’s AWOL status and requested that his salary and benefits be withheld.
Latiza later submitted his letter of resignation on 19 March 2003, which was duly indorsed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

Latiza’s flight and continued absence despite repeated notices.
His resignation amidst allegations and evidence of his involvement in the loss of the P24,800.
Affidavits from co-employees confirming that Latiza had admitted his liability regarding the evidence.

Separately, the OCA noted that Latiza previously had an administrative case (A.M. No. P-02-1610) for insubordination and simple misconduct involving behavior (appearing drunk) at the Palace of Justice.

The Court En Banc consolidated the cases (A.M. No. 03-10-576-RTC and A.M. No. 03-3-179-RTC) and referred them for appropriate action.
The OCA, finding Latiza guilty of dishonesty, deemed his unexplained absences as abandonment of office.
Although dismissal was no longer feasible due to his resignation, the OCA recommended the imposition of a fine (P40,000) for dishonesty.
The final resolution accepted his resignation without prejudice to ongoing proceedings and imposed the withholding of P50,000 from his benefits.
The penalty further included forfeiture of his retirement and all benefits (except accrued leave credits) and a disqualification from future re-employment in any branch of government.
The legal office of the OCA was directed to file the appropriate criminal charges against Latiza.

Whether Michael A. Latiza’s acts—including allowing unauthorized individuals to stay in the courtroom and his failure to appear during the investigation—constitute dishonesty and grave misconduct.

Determination if his conduct, which resulted in the loss of evidence in a criminal case, violated the ethical and professional standards expected of a court employee.
Consideration of whether his unexcused absences and flight from duty substantiate the claim of abandonment of office.

The propriety of imposing administrative sanctions such as withholding salary/benefits and fining him despite his resignation.

Whether resignation can serve as an effective shield against administrative liability for misconduct.
The legal implications of enforcing penalties even after the employee has resigned.

The adequacy and legality of the disciplinary actions based on court precedents.

Review of similar cases that upheld fines for dishonesty and grave misconduct.
Determination of whether the penalties (forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from re-employment) are justified and proportionate.