2.
) Rabe vs Flores
FACTS:
An administrative complaint was filed by petitioner Narita Rabe against
respondent Delsa Flores, Interpreter III of the RTC of Panabo, Davao for
“conduct unbecoming a government employee, acts prejudicial to the
interest of the service and abuse of authority.” It was alleged that Flores
took advantage of her position as a court employee by claiming a stall at
the public market when she is not among those awarded the market’s
stalls by the court in a civil case. Also, she is said to have destroyed
petitioner’s stall and brought the materials to the police station of the
municipality. The court in a resolution absolved her of the charge.
However, she was made to explain the following: (a) why she had a
certification that she started working as an interpreter on May 16, 1991,
and another declaring that she was Assessment Clerk I under the office of
the Municipal Assessor from February 1, 1990 to June 3, 1991; (b) why she
did not report said business interest (market stall) in her sworn statement
of assets, liabilities and net worth, disclosure of business interests and
financial connections, and identification of relatives in the government
service for the years 1991-1994; (c) why she has not divested herself of her
interest in said business within 60 days from assumption of office, and; (d)
why she has claimed that she reported for work in certain 21 working days
when her contract of lease with the municipal government required her to
personally conduct her business and be present at the stall. Upon referral
to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the latter found
respondent guilty for dishonesty and failure to report her business
interest, and recommended a dismissal.
ISSUE:
Whether respondent is guilty of the above charges and should be dismissed
from service.
HELD;
YES. Indeed! She has failed to satisfactorily explain why she still
collected her salary from the municipality when the glaring fact was she
was already employed at the RTC. She knew that she was no longer
entitled to the same, but she took it nonetheless. What according to her is
an overriding need for money aggravated by the alleged delay in the
processing of her salary from the court in no way justifies receipt of salary
not due her. Also, that she is the sole breadwinner of the family is not an
acceptable excuse for her misconduct. If she was really in merely in need
of money, then she should have returned the salary to the municipal
government as soon as she obtained her salary from the court. But she
didn’t do this. Instead, she only refunded after receipt of the court’s
resolution, on the pretext of forgetting about it. Forgetfulness is, again,
never a rational or acceptable explanation. Pursuant to the
Administrative Code of 1987 and other Civil Service Law as, the penalty
for dishonesty is dismissal, even for the first offense. A public office is a
public trust. Although every office in the government service is a public
trust, no position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness
from an individual than in the judiciary. Flores should also be held liable
for failure to perform her legal obligation to disclose her business interests.
Her market stall is undoubtedly a business interest. The OCA even found
that she had been receiving rental payments from one Rodolfo Luay for
the use of the stall. Her contention that her contract of lease of market
stall was never implemented because it became the subject of a civil case
also fails to convince. The case she was referring to was filed in 1995;
earlier than this, she was already collecting rentals as early as 1991.
Therefore, she should have declared said business interest for the years
1991- 1995. RA No. 6713 provides that it is the “obligation” of an employee
to submit a sworn statement of his assets, liabilities, net worth and
financial and business interest, because the public has a right to know.
Violation of this also constitutes sufficient cause for removal or dismissal.