Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
EN BANC
|
ARTHUR M. GABON, Complainant, - versus - REBECCA P. MERKA, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial
Court, Liloan, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No. P-11-3000 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3524-P) Present: CARPIO, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, SERENO, REYES, and PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
Promulgated: December 14, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PER CURIAM:
We resolve
the administrative complaint against respondent Rebecca P. Merka, Clerk of
Court II, Municipal Trial Court (MTC)
of Liloan,
The Factual Antecedents
The
antecedent facts, gathered from the records, are summarized below.
In his
Complaint-Affidavit,[1]
complainant Arthur M. Gabon charged the respondent with Grave Misconduct (1)
for writing eight demand letters in 1993 in behalf of the Saint Ignatius Loyola
Credit Cooperative, Inc.,[2]
Simeon C. Maamo, Jr.[3]
and Restituta Claridad[4]
using the MTC’s official letterhead and signing the same letters in her
official capacity as the Clerk of Court of the MTC of Liloan, Southern Leyte;
and (2) for administering oaths in five affidavits[5]
and a Kasabutan (Agreement)[6]
in 1995 and 2000 that had no relation with her official duties.
The Office
of the Court Administrator (OCA)
directed the respondent to comment on the complaint.[7]
In her Comment,[8]
the respondent admitted the charge of using the MTC’s official letterhead and
signing the demand letters in her official capacity, but explained that she
acted in good faith to aid in declogging court dockets. She insisted that she
was duly authorized to administer oaths under Section M, Chapter VIII of the
Manual for Clerks of Court and that she did not abuse the franking privilege of
the court in sending the letters as these letters were in representation of the
court. She averred that the complaint was a harassment suit because she
committed the acts complained of 15 or 17 years ago.
The
complainant filed a Reply-Affidavit,[9]
arguing that the respondent acted like the counsel of a private party in
writing the demand letters and that the respondent’s authority to administer
oaths extended only to cases filed or pending in her assigned court.
The OCA’s Report and Recommendation
The OCA
recommended that the present matter be redocketed as a regular administrative
complaint. It found the respondent guilty of simple misconduct for (a) the
unauthorized use of the letterhead of the court and her official designation in
the demand letters she prepared in 1993, and (b) administering oaths in
affidavits and a document executed in 1995 and 2000 on matters not involving
official business. It recommended a penalty of suspension for one (1) month and
one (1) day.[10]
The OCA
also found the respondent guilty of violating Presidential Decree (PD) No. 26[11]
for taking advantage of the franking privilege extended to courts in sending
the demand letters. It recommended a fine of P500.00 for this offense.
The OCA
noted that in 2009, the Court fined the respondent in the amount of P2,000.00
for abuse of authority for the 2007 notarization of a document not related to her
official functions, but this previous offense cannot now be used to increase
her penalty because the acts complained of in the present case predated the act
penalized in the 2009 case.[12]
The Court’s Ruling
We modify the findings and
recommendation of the OCA.
We have
repeatedly stressed that all officials and employees involved in the
administration of justice, from judges to the lowest rank and file employees,
bear the heavy responsibility of acting with strict propriety and decorum at
all times in order to merit and maintain the public's respect for, and trust
in, the Judiciary. Simply stated, all court personnel must conduct themselves
in a manner exemplifying integrity, honesty and uprightness.[13]
In this
case, the respondent's use of the letterhead of the court and of her official
designation in the eight demand letters she prepared in 1993 hardly meets the
foregoing standard. She took advantage of her office and position to advance
the interests of private individuals, acting as “counsel” and collecting agent
for the Saint Ignatius Loyola Credit Cooperative, Inc., Simeon C. Maamo, Jr.,
and Restituta Claridad. Despite her good intentions, she gave private
individuals an unwarranted privilege at the expense of the name of the court.[14]
The
respondent also administered oaths in documents not involving official
business, in violation of Section 41,[15] as amended by Section 2 of Republic Act No.
6733,[16]
and Section 242[17]
of the Revised Administrative Code, in relation with Sections G,[18]
M[19]
and N,[20]
Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court. Under these provisions, Clerks
of Court are notaries public ex officio;
they may notarize documents or administer oaths only when the matter is related
to the exercise of their official functions. Thus, in their ex-officio capacity, clerks of court
should not take part in the execution of private documents bearing no relation
at all to their official functions.[21]
The respondent administered oaths in five affidavits and a document bearing no
relation at all to her official functions.
We note
that the respondent also violated PD No. 26. The franking privilege granted by
PD No. 26 extended only to judges and referred to official communications and
papers directly connected with the
conduct of judicial proceedings which shall be transmitted in the mail free of
charge.[22]
The respondent was not a judge nor were the eight demand letters related to the
discharge of judicial functions.
We cannot tolerate the respondent’s flagrant abuse and misuse of
authority.
Misconduct in office refers to "any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. The term embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act."[23] In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule must be manifest.[24] Corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an official or employee who unlawfully or wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another, contrary to the rights of others,[25] as in this case. By her repeated abuse and misuse of authority, the respondent exhibited an obvious lack of integrity expected of a court employee.
Grave
misconduct is a serious offense punishable, under Section 52 of the Revised
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, with dismissal even
for the first offense.
We are
duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline errant employees
and to weed out those who are found undesirable. The respondent failed to meet
the strict standards set for a court employee; hence, she does not deserve to
remain in the Judiciary.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Rebecca P. Merka, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court of
Liloan,
SO ORDERED.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice
|
|
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
|
ROBERTO A.
ABAD Associate Justice
|
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
JOSE Associate Justice |
|
JOSE
CATRAL Associate Justice |
MARIA Associate Justice |
|
BIENVENIDO
L. REYES Associate Justice |
ESTELA M.
PERLAS-BERNABE Associate Justice |
[1] Dated
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Dated
[9] Dated
[10] Memorandum
dated
[11] Entitled
“Extending Franking Privilege to Papers
Connected with Judicial Proceedings.”
[12] Resolution
dated
[13] In Re: Improper Solicitation of Court
Employees — Rolando H. Hernandez, Executive Assistant I, Legal Office, Office
of the Court Administrator, A.M. No. 2008-12-SC (formerly A.M. No.
08-7-4-SC),
[14] Section 1, Canon I of the Code of Conduct
for Court Personnel, effective
[15] Sec. 41. Officers
Authorized to Administer Oath. — The following officers have general
authority to administer oaths: President; Vice-President; Members and
Secretaries of both Houses of the Congress; Members of the Judiciary;
Secretaries of Departments; provincial governors and lieutenant-governors; city
mayors; municipal mayors; bureau directors; regional directors; clerks of
courts; registrars of deeds; other civilian officers in the public service of
the government of the Philippines whose appointments are vested in the President
and are subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; all other
constitutional officers; and notaries public.
[16] An
Act to Amend Section 21, Title I, Book I of the Revised Administrative Code of
1987, Granting Members of Both Houses of the Congress of the
[17] Sec. 242. Officers acting as notaries public ex officio. - Except as otherwise specially provided, the following officials, and none other, shall be deemed to be notaries public ex officio, and as such they are authorized to perform, within the limits of their territorial jurisdiction as hereinbelow defined, all the duties appertaining to the office of notary public.
(a) The Chief of the Division of Archives, Patents, Copyrights, and Trade-marks, the Clerk of the Supreme Court, the Clerk of the Court of First Instance of the Ninth Judicial District, the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, and the Superintendent of the Postal Savings Bank Division, Bureau of Posts—when acting within the limits of the City of Manila.
(b)
Clerks of Courts of First Instance outside of the City
of
(c) Justices of the peace, within the limits of the territory over which their jurisdiction as justices of the peace extends; but auxiliary justices of the peace and other officers who are by law vested with the office of justice of the peace ex officio shall not, solely by reason of such authority, be also entitled to act in the capacity of notaries ex officio.
(d) Any government officer or employee of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu appointed notary public ex officio by the judge of the Court of First Instance, with jurisdiction coextensive with the province wherein the appointee is stationed, and for a term of two years beginning upon the first day of January of the year in which the appointment is made.
[The Department of Mindanao and Sulu, as a special political division has been abolished by section 1 of Act 2878.]
The authority conferred in subsections (a) and (b) hereof may, in the absence of the chief or clerk of court, be exercised by an assistant chief, acting chief, or deputy clerk of court pertaining to the office in question.
[18] The provisions of Section G, Chapter VIII
of the Manual for Clerks of Court are essentially the same as the provisions of
Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code.
[19] The provisions of Section M, Chapter VIII
of the Manual for Clerks of Court are lifted from Section 41 of the Revised
Administrative Code, as amended.
[20] Section
N. DUTY TO ADMINISTER OATH. — Officers authorized to administer oaths, with the
exception of notaries public, municipal judges and clerks of court, are not
obliged to administer oaths or execute certificates save in matters of official business; and with the exception of
notaries public, the officer performing the service in those matters shall
charge no fee, unless specifically authorized by law.
[21] Exec. Judge Astorga v. Solas, 413 Phil. 558, 562 (2001).
[22]
[23] Pascual
v. Martin, A.M. No. P-08-2552,
[24] Re:
Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Hon. Marilou Runes-Tamang, Presiding Judge,
MeTC Pateros, Metro Manila and Presiding Judge, MeTC San Juan, Metro Manila,
A.M. No. MTJ-04-1558,
[25] Ibid.