A.M. No. P-90-452, P-92-667

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-90-452, P-92-667)

Factual Background

In October 13, 1988, respondents Virgincita Villalobos and Ana B. Lacaden requested Atty. Nelia Recio, Clerk of Court of the MeTC, San Juan, to approve the six (6) months leave application of respondent Acuna on the claim that Acuna was seriously ill with pulmonary tuberculosis, as supported by a Medical Certificate. Relying on the attached certificate, Atty. Recio approved the sick leave.

After approximately two weeks, Atty. Recio received reports that respondent Acuna had gone to Saipan, USA, together with respondent Lacaden’s husband, to work as a contract worker. The reports were corroborated by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) through a letter dated November 23, 1988, confirming that Acuna had left the country on August 18, 1988 for Guam. Further inquiries through the POEA showed that Acuna obtained a one (1)-year employment contract from Nor Mar Enterprises, Hartley Kroul, DBA Bang Bang Corporation, Saipan, USA, to work as an Instructor.

The Court found that Villalobos and Lacaden not only covered up Acuna’s absence while he was abroad without the required permission of his immediate superior and this Court, but also conspired to receive Acuna’s salary while he was away up to November 1988, despite knowledge that Acuna’s leave credits were exhausted as of October 20, 1988. Villalobos, described as the Authorized Liaison Officer responsible for receiving salary checks from the Court, received four (4) checks pertaining to Acuna for the period October 30, 1988 to November 20, 1988. To encash those checks, Lacaden forged Acuna’s signature at the back of the four checks.

Developments in the Administrative Timeline

On December 9, 1988, Atty. Recio issued a Memorandum directing Villalobos either to return all checks received for and in behalf of Acuna or to inform her of their whereabouts if they were no longer in Villalobos’s possession. Instead of complying, Villalobos disregarded the directive and responded with cutting remarks that even questioned Atty. Recio’s authority.

Subsequently, on April 16, 1990, an Investigation, Report and Recommendation was made by Executive Judge Milagros A. Caguioa, pursuant to the third indorsement dated July 6, 1989 of the then Court Administrator, Meynardo A. Tiro. Based on the investigation report, the successor Court Administrator, the Honorable Josue N. Bellosillo (also identified as a member of the Court), filed an administrative complaint on December 19, 1991, recommending the dismissal from the service of all three respondents and the imposition of proper penalties on Villalobos and Lacaden in addition to Acuna. The complaint likewise recommended administrative consequences for Assistant Prosecutor Severina A. Acuna, who was applying for the position of Metropolitan Trial Court Judge of Manila.

Issues Framed by the Court’s Findings

The Court evaluated the propriety of the administrative recommendation based on the respondents’ acts relating to: Acuna’s travel abroad without permission and the claimed sick leave used to conceal his absence; Villalobos’s and Lacaden’s participation in covering up the absence and receiving Acuna’s salary while he was no longer entitled; Villalobos’s failure to heed her superior’s order to return the checks or report their whereabouts, and her demeanor characterized as discourteous and insubordinate; and the alleged participation of Assistant Prosecutor Severina A. Acuna in orchestrating the events connected with the alleged anomalies.

The Legal Grounds Invoked

The Court anchored its assessment on Memorandum Order No. 26, which provides that requests for permission to travel abroad from members and employees of the judiciary must be obtained from the Supreme Court. It treated Acuna’s departure abroad without such permission as a violation of that directive and therefore as an offense. It also ruled that Acuna was guilty of dishonesty for applying for sick leave on the pretext that he was seriously ill, in order to conceal his absence.

The Court further treated the conduct as falling under administrative disciplinary grounds under P.D. 807, Section 36(b), Article IX, expressly citing dishonesty, neglect of duty, pursuit of private business or vocation without the permission required by Civil Service rules, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. On this basis, the Court characterized these as serious infractions warranting dismissal with forfeiture of benefits.

The Court also invoked the policy that the State should promote a high standard of ethics in public service. It referenced R.A. 6173, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and the 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section I, emphasizing public accountability and the obligation of public officials to discharge duties with integrity, competence, loyalty, patriotism, and justice while upholding public interest over personal interest.

Positions and Evidence Considered

Based on the narrative of the record as recounted by the Court, respondent Acuna’s acts were shown by the travel and employment confirmations, the sick leave application supported by a medical certificate, and the subsequent disclosures that he had left for the United States and secured a one-year employment contract as an Instructor. The Court treated the timing of reports and the CID and POEA findings as confirming that the alleged illness and leave were used to conceal his absence.

For respondents Villalobos and Lacaden, the Court treated as established that they asked for approval of Acuna’s sick leave using the medical certificate; they then covered up Acuna while he was abroad without authorization; and they received salary checks despite the exhaustion of Acuna’s leave credits. The Court also treated as proven that Lacaden forged Acuna’s signatures on the back of the salary checks to enable their encashment.

With respect to Villalobos, the Court treated as undisputed that she disregarded the lawful Memorandum of Atty. Recio ordering the return of the checks or the disclosure of their whereabouts and instead answered in a manner described as challenging Atty. Recio’s authority. The Court treated such conduct as failing in official duties and as reflecting disrespect and insubordination.

Finally, the Court described the conduct of Assistant Prosecutor Severina A. Acuna during the investigation. It characterized her behavior as evasive when questions that might yield answers unfavorable to her case were asked, and as insistent on participation when her interests were at stake. The Court also stated that it observed a pattern reflecting a role connected to the alleged transaction.

Ruling on the Administrative Liability

The Court held that respondent Acuna’s act of going abroad without permission violated Memorandum Order No. 26 and further constituted dishonesty for using the pretext of illness to conceal his absence. It characterized Acuna’s acts as beyond doubt showing unfitness to continue in government service and ruled that dismissal was warranted.

The Court likewise condemned Villalobos’s and Lacaden’s acts as violating the ethical and accountability standards expected of public employees. It treated their covering up of Acuna and their participation in receiving Acuna’s salary while he was no longer entitled—coupled with the forging of signatures— as dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service under P.D. 807.

Regarding Villalobos’s conduct toward Atty. Recio, the Court ruled that her order-disregard and insubordination were unlawful and unreasonable. It held that the order was lawful and did not justify her arrogant and cutting response.

As to Assistant Prosecutor Severina A. Acuna, the Court was disturbed by her manner during the investigation and noted the possibility that she orchestrated Acuna’s departure, the concealment of his absence through the sick leave application, and the receipt by Villalobos and Lacaden of salary to which Acuna was no longer entitled. The Court therefore ordered an additional investigation to determine the gravity of her participation and indicated that, if proven, administrative dismissal from service and suspension from the practice of law would follow.

Dispositive Portion and Direction to Other Agencies

The Court ordered the dismissal of Deputy Sheriff Victorio M. Acuna, Virgincita Villalobos, and Ana Lacaden from the service with prejudice to their being appointed or rein

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-90-452, P-92-667)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Nelia Recio appeared as Complainant in A.M. No. P-90-452, while Office of the Court Administrator appeared as Complainant in A.M. No. P-92-667, both targeting Victorio M. Acuna, Deputy Sheriff, and co-respondents Virgincita Villalobos, Ana Lacaden, and court personnel involved in the irregular acts.
The case proceeded in the Supreme Court as an administrative matter after the Court’s Resolution dated October 24, 1990 directed the Office of the Court Administrator to implement the actions recommended in its memorandum report.
The Office of the Court Administrator filed an administrative case charging Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL), insubordination, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against the named respondents.
The Court ultimately considered the propriety of the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation, which included dismissal as the principal penalty for Acuna and corresponding penalties for the other respondents.
Bellosillo, J. took no part, and the remaining Justices concurred.

Key Factual Allegations

Respondents Virgincita Villalobos and Ana B. Lacaden requested Atty. Nelia Recio, Clerk of Court of the MeTC, San Juan, to approve Acuna’s six (6) months leave application by representing that Acuna was seriously ill with pulmonary tuberculosis.
Atty. Recio approved the sick leave application based on the Medical Certificate attached to the request.
Two (2) weeks after approval, Atty. Recio received reports that Acuna had left for Saipan, USA, together with Lacadens husband, to work as a contract worker.
The reports were confirmed by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) through a letter dated November 23, 1988, indicating that Acuna left the country on August 18, 1988 for Guam.
Further inquiries from the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) showed that Acuna obtained a one (1)-year employment contract from Nor Mar Enterprises, Hartley Kroul, DBA Bang Bang Corporation, Saipan, USA, to work as an instructor.
The conduct of Villalobos and Lacaden was described as covering up for Acuna while he was abroad without permission from his immediate superior and the Court.
The respondents allegedly conspired to receive Acuna’s salary while he was away up to November 1988, despite knowledge that Acuna’s leave credits were exhausted as of October 20, 1988.
Villalobos, as Authorized Liaison Officer responsible for receiving salary checks, allegedly received four (4) checks for Acuna covering the period from October 30, 1988 to November 20, 1988.
To encash the checks, Lacaden allegedly forged Acuna’s signature at the back of the four (4) PNB checks.
On December 9, 1988, Atty. Recio issued a memorandum to Villalobos to return all checks received for and in behalf of Acuna or to report their whereabouts.
Instead of complying, Villalobos disregarded the directive and responded with cutting remarks, including questioning Recio’s authority to issue the memorandum.
An Investigation, Report and Recommendation was made on April 16, 1990 by Executive Judge Milagros A. Caguioa pursuant to the 3rd Indorsement dated July 6, 1989 of the then Court Administrator.
Honorable Josue N. Bellosillo filed an Administrative Complaint on December 19, 1991, recommending dismissal for Acuna and appropriate penalties for Villalobos and Lacaden, and also recommended inquiry regarding the administrative liability of Assistant Prosecutor Severina A. Acuna.

Administrative Charges and Governing Rules

The principal grounds considered were Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL), insubordination, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The Court held that Acuna’s act of going abroad without permission violated Memorandum Order No. 26, which required that requests for travel abroad by members and employees of the judiciary be obtained from the Supreme Court.
The Court held that Acuna’s sick leave application was a pretext used to conceal absence from the country, and thus constituted dishonesty.
The Court treated these acts as disciplinary grounds under P.D. 807, Section 36(b), Article IX, specifically dishonesty, neglect of duty, pursuit of private business without the required permission, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The Court characterized the acts attributed to Villalobos and Lacaden—covering up Acuna’s absence and receiving salary beyond entitlement—as also falling under dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service under P.D. 807.
For Villalobos, the Court also held that discourtesy in the course of official duties and insubordination attended her failure to heed Recio’s lawful directive.
The Court further noted that the alleged acts of receiving salary checks through forged signatures and indorsements were highly anomalous and were described as acts punishable as a criminal offense, thereby supporting the conclusion that severe administrative discipline was warranted.

Issues Presented

The Court determined whether Acuna’s unauthorized departure abroad and fraudulent sick leave justification warranted dismissal from service.
The Court considered whether Villalobos and Lacaden were administratively liable for covering up Acuna’s absence, receiving his salary while he was no longer entitled to it, and participating in the encashment of checks through forgery.
The Court examined whether Villalobos’s refusal to comply with Recio’s memorandum directive constituted insubordination and discourtesy.
The Court assessed whether the administrative wrongdoing implicated Assistant Prosecutor Severina A. Acuna, particularly in relation to the investigative record and the alleged pattern of parti