Case Summary (A.M. No. P-15-3391)
Antecedent Facts
On October 25, 2012, private complainants Marie Andrea Alarilla and Gwen Marie Lachica enlisted Garduce's assistance to process a bail bond for their father, who was involved in a pending criminal case. They provided Garduce with an initial payment of P2,000.00, followed by an additional amount of P21,000.00 later that day. Upon receiving a receipt, however, they found it documented only P20,500.00, leading to their discovery that their motion for bail was denied. When they demanded the return of their total payment of P23,000.00, Garduce refused, prompting them to file a complaint with the police, where Garduce invoked her right to remain silent.
Proceedings at the Prosecutor's Office
An inquest proceeding was conducted by the Parañaque City Prosecutor on October 27, 2012, which concluded that there was probable cause to indict Garduce for the crime of Estafa. Subsequently, the OCA issued a 1st Indorsement on December 3, 2012, requiring Garduce to file a comment within ten days. Her continued failure to respond led to a reiterated demand from the OCA on May 28, 2013, emphasizing her obligation to comment on the complaint.
Recommendation and Ruling of the OCA
The OCA ultimately recommended the re-docketing of the matter as a regular administrative case and found Garduce guilty of grave misconduct and willful violation of the Court's rules, directing that she be dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, barring reemployment in any government office. The OCA identified Garduce’s acceptance of money for the processing of the bail bond as a breach of appropriate conduct, particularly referencing specific provisions in the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
Ruling of the Court
The Supreme Court upheld the OCA's recommendation, emphasizing the significant responsibility of court employees and reiterating the principle that court personnel must avoid any appearance of impropriety. The Court underscored that Garduce's acceptance of payments from litigants constituted grave misconduct, supported by the allegations against her that went unrefuted. Notably, the Court distinguished the nature of misconduct under Section 46(A)(3), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which stipul
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. P-15-3391)
Introduction
- The case stems from an incident report involving Rosemarie U. Garduce, a Clerk III at the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Parañaque City.
- The report details allegations of misconduct, specifically the crime of Estafa, linked to her handling of a bail bond for the private complainants.
Antecedent Facts
- On October 25, 2012, complainants Marie Andrea Alarilla and Gwen Marie Lachica engaged Garduce to process a bail bond for their father facing criminal charges.
- They initially paid Garduce P2,000.00, followed by an additional P21,000.00 later that day, totaling P23,000.00.
- Upon receiving a receipt, Alarilla and Lachica noted that it only reflected P20,500.00.
- Their motion for bail was subsequently denied, prompting them to demand a refund from Garduce, which she refused.
- The complainants reported the incident to the Parañaque City Police, where Garduce invoked her right to remain silent.
- The Parañaque City Prosecutor conducted an inquest on October 27, 2012, leading to probable cause for indicting Garduce for Estafa.
Procedural History
- The Office of the Court Administrator