A.M. No. P-22-072 - Crisologo-Saguisag vs. Haboc

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-22-072)

Factual Background

During the hearing of Criminal Case No. 377282, People of the Philippines v. Cynthia Balaoro, the accused, Cynthia Balaoro, manifested that she had executed a compromise agreement with private complainant HARU Access Loan, Inc., but that HARU did not deduct from her liability the payments she claimed to have made. HARU denied receipt of payments. Balaoro stated that she coursed her payments through respondent Edith P. Haboc, who was at the time a clerk assigned to Branch 62. Presiding Judge Ma. Concepcion A. Billones referred the matter to Executive Judge Jackie B. Crisologo-Saguisag for proper action because respondent was no longer assigned to Branch 62.

OCA and Preliminary Investigation

Pursuant to Judge Billiones’ letter, the Office of the Court Administrator directed Executive Judge Crisologo-Saguisag to investigate and submit recommendations. In her confidential Letter-Report dated January 18, 2018, Judge Crisologo-Saguisag found that respondent received cash deposits from Balaoro and concluded that such conduct interfered with the proper performance of official duties. Judge Crisologo-Saguisag further reported that respondent had a prior criminal conviction for three counts of violation of BP 22 in Criminal Cases Nos. 363253-55 and that respondent had not appealed but instead applied for probation. The report also noted respondent’s declaration of intent to avail of optional retirement effective October 30, 2017.

OCA-Legal Office Evaluation

The OCA-Legal Office, in its Memorandum dated September 6, 2018, partially concurred and partially dissented with Judge Crisologo-Saguisag. It accepted respondent’s explanation that the payments from Balaoro represented a one-time personal loan without interest and found that those transactions alone were insufficient to establish administrative liability or to adversely reflect on the integrity of the judiciary. The OCA-Legal Office, however, found respondent’s prior convictions for three counts of BP 22 to be a sufficient basis for an administrative complaint and recommended that respondent be required to file a comment thereon. Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez approved the recommendations.

Procedural Posture

The OCA directed respondent to comment on Judge Crisologo-Saguisag’s Letter-Report within ten days and issued a tracer to reiterate the directive. Respondent failed to file her comment. The matter was then submitted for resolution and was reported to the Judicial Integrity Board, which made recommendations on disposition.

Report and Recommendation of the Judicial Integrity Board

The Judicial Integrity Board, in its Report dated October 5, 2022, recommended that the administrative case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter against respondent Edith P. Haboc and that she be found administratively liable for being convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. The JIB recommended the penalty of forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and permanent disqualification from re-employment in any government agency, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The JIB characterized the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude as a serious charge and noted the range of sanctions under the applicable rules.

Issue Presented

The dispositive question before the Court was whether respondent Edith P. Haboc should be held administratively liable by reason of her final conviction for three counts of violation of BP 22, a crime involving moral turpitude, and, if so, what administrative penalties should follow.

Parties’ Contentions

Judge Crisologo-Saguisag contended that respondent’s receipt of cash from Balaoro and respondent’s prior criminal convictions warranted administrative action. Respondent explained that the monies she accepted from Balaoro were a one-time personal loan extended without interest and that such isolated conduct did not besmirch the integrity of the judiciary. In the criminal proceedings, respondent did not appeal her conviction but applied for probation, and in the administrative proceedings she failed to file a comment despite being given opportunity to do so.

Ruling of the Court

The Court agreed with the JIB’s findings and recommendation. It held that a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. The Court reaffirmed that violation of BP 22 is a crime involving moral turpitude and that prior decisions had treated such conviction as sufficient basis for administrative penalties. The Court observed that respondent’s application for probation in the criminal case did not exempt her from administrative sanctions and that in prior cases the Court treated the conviction and probation application as rendering the conviction final for administrative purposes.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court relied on established doctrine that a final conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude supports administrative discipline. The Court cited precedents including Re: Conviction of Imelda B. Fortus and Hanrieder v. De Rivera, which applied the Administrative Code of 1987 and URACCS to dismiss or otherwise discipline court personnel convicted of BP 22. The Court also invoked A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, which amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and classified the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude as a “serious charge” that may be punished by dismissal, forfeiture of benefits, and disqualification from re-employment, among other sanctions. The Court emphasized the heightened obligation of court employees to observe propriety and to avoid conduct that diminishes public trust in the judiciary.

Consideration of Respondent’s Employment Status and Prior Disciplinary Record

The Court noted respondent’s prior administrative sanctions for habitual tardiness and her earlier dropping from the rolls effective November 2, 2017, for absence without leave. Because respondent had already been dropped from the ro

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-22-072)

Parties and Procedural Posture

EXECUTIVE JUDGE JACKIE B. CRISOLOGO-SAGUISAG, COMPLAINANT initiated administrative action through the Office of the Court Administrator regarding matters raised in a presiding judge's letter.
EDITH P. HABOC, CLERK III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 62, RESPONDENT was the court clerk who was the subject of both a criminal conviction and administrative inquiries.
The administrative case arose from respondent's criminal conviction for three counts of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) and from allegations concerning mishandled cash payments in a pending criminal matter.
The Judicial Integrity Board submitted a Report and Recommendation to the Court recommending forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification from re-employment.
The Court resolved the administrative case en banc through a Decision authored by ZALAMEDA, J..

Key Factual Allegations

The presiding judge of Branch 62 reported that accused Cynthia Balaoro stated she coursed payments through respondent in relation to People of the Philippines v. Cynthia Balaoro.
Private complainant HARU Access Loan, Inc. contended that it did not receive the payments allegedly tendered by Balaoro.
Judge Ma. Concepcion A. Billones referred the matter to Executive Judge Crisologo-Saguisag for investigation because respondent was no longer assigned to Branch 62.
Executive Judge Crisologo-Saguisag found in a confidential Letter-Report that respondent received cash deposits from Balaoro and that respondent's explanation that the amounts were loans was inappropriate because it interfered with official duties.
Respondent previously stood convicted in Criminal Cases Nos. 363253-55 for issuing three checks in favor of Rodolfo A. De Los Santos that were later dishonored.
Respondent did not appeal her BP 22 convictions and instead applied for probation, and she subsequently indicated intent to avail of optional retirement effective 30 October 2017.

Procedural History

The OCA received Judge Billones' letter and directed Executive Judge Crisologo-Saguisag to investigate and recommend action by OCA Letter dated 07 November 2017.
The OCA-Legal Office issued a Memorandum dated 06 September 2018 which found respondent's transactions with Balaoro insufficient for administrative liability but deemed the BP 22 convictions a proper basis for administrative action.
Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez approved the OCA-Legal Office recommendations and directed respondent to file a comment, which respondent failed to do after a tracer reminder.
The Judicial Integrity Board issued a Report dated 05 October 2022 recommending re-docketing the matter as a regular administrative case and imposing forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits with perpetual disqualification from government re-employment.
The Court issued an en banc Decision adopting the JIB r