Case Number: A.M. No.

MTJ-16-1870

Case Title: RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER COMPLAINT, Complainant vs. JUDGE DIVINA T. SAMSON,
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Mabini-Pantukan, Compostela Valley, and UTILITY WORKER FRANCISCO M.
ROQUE, JR., Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Mabini-Pantukan, Compostela Valley, Respondents

Date: June 6, 2017

Topic: Power of the President: The Pardoning Power

Summary of Facts:

An anonymous letter complaint was filed against Judge Divina T. Samson and Utility Worker Francisco M.
Roque, Jr. Judge Samson was accused of misconduct for hiring Roque despite knowing about his prior
conviction for illegal possession of explosives. Roque was convicted in 2005 but was discharged from
probation in 2008. However, when Roque applied for the utility worker position in Judge Samson's court, he did
not disclose his conviction in his Personal Data Sheet.

Issues:

1. Whether Roque is liable for dishonesty and falsification for not disclosing his criminal conviction in his
Personal Data Sheet.

2. Whether Judge Samson violated the Code of Judicial Conduct for recommending Roque despite knowing
about his probation status when he applied for the position.

Ruling and Decision:

The Court found Roque guilty of serious dishonesty for failing to disclose his criminal conviction in his Personal
Data Sheet. He was penalized with a six-month suspension without pay. Judge Samson was found guilty of
gross misconduct for recommending Roque while aware of his probationary status. She was fined ₱25,000.

Doctrine and Legal Analysis:

The decision referred to Moreno v. Commission on Elections, emphasizing that during probation, a person's
right to seek employment remains. However, it was established that Roque had an obligation to disclose his
criminal record despite the confidentiality of probation records. Dishonesty in the Personal Data Sheet, a
requirement under Civil Service Rules, resulted in Roque gaining an unfair advantage in his employment
application.

CSC Resolution No. 06-0538 was cited to classify dishonesty, specifying the corresponding penalties based on
circumstances. Mitigating factors, including length of service and good faith, were considered to modify
penalties.

The Court applied precedents to determine penalties. In various cases, dishonest government employees
faced suspension rather than dismissal, taking into account their service years and first offenses. Judge
Samson's actions were found to violate the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Canon 2, promoting public
confidence in the judiciary.

The ruling stressed that Judge Samson should have waited for Roque's final discharge from probation before
considering his application and giving a favorable recommendation, as per the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Conclusion:
Judge Samson was fined ₱25,000 for gross misconduct, while Roque received a six-month suspension without
pay for serious dishonesty. The decision highlights the importance of transparency in employment applications
and the responsibility of judges in maintaining the integrity of the judiciary.

In the case outlined, the pardoning power of the President isn’t directly relevant to the proceedings or the
decision reached by the Court. The case primarily deals with administrative complaints against a judge and a
court employee for dishonesty, misconduct, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The issue revolves
around the failure of the court employee to disclose his criminal conviction in his employment application and
the judge's involvement in recommending him despite being aware of his probation status during the
application.

The pardon power of the President typically relates to criminal matters, allowing the President to grant
reprieves, pardons, commutations, and pardons conditional upon terms they may deem fit for offenses against
the United States, excluding cases of impeachment. In this case, the pardon power wouldn't directly affect the
court's decision or the administrative sanctions imposed on the individuals involved because the matter at
hand is administrative rather than criminal in nature.

Even if the court employee had received a pardon from the President for the offense in question, it might affect
his criminal liability but not necessarily the administrative consequences or the violations concerning his
employment application. The administrative proceedings focused on the dishonesty of the court employee in
not disclosing his conviction, which is separate from the legal impact of a pardon.

Therefore, in this specific case, the President's pardon power is not directly relevant to the administrative
proceedings and the resultant decision regarding the violations of the court employee and the judge.