In the case of OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. SHEELA NOBLEZA, etc., En Banc, A.M. No. P-08-2510 (per curiam), April 24, 2009, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), charged Rolando H. Hernandez, Executive Assistant I, Legal Office, OCA, for dishonesty through improper solicitations from bonding companies accredited by the Court, and unauthorized use of an improvised letterhead of the Court, in connection with the 5th National Convention on May 5 to 7, 2008 at the Quezon Convention Center, Lucena City. In Administrative Matter No. P-08-2510, the OCA charged Sheela R. Nobleza, Court Stenographer, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 23, Manila for the same offense as the solicitations were made in her behalf. After an investigation, the Philippine Supreme Court DISMISSED them from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
I wish to digest the resolution of the Court in the above-cited case, for future reference and legal research purposes of lawyers and court personnel visiting this blog.
The functions of the Legal Office, Office of the Court Administrator, where respondent Hernandez worked, included, among others, the monitoring and collection of forfeited surety bonds, and issues certifications to insurance companies engaged in the bonding business. The personnel of the said division where respondent Hernandez was assigned interacted with people transacting business with the said office such as bonding companies and employees of the lower courts.
Both respondents admitted that on different dates and occasions, they personally went together and brought solicitation letters to the offices of bonding companies and actually solicited money. So that the letters would appear to be official and authorized for the said purpose, respondents used improvised letterheads of the Supreme Court and the Metropolitan Trial Court Stenographers Association (MeTCSA), Manila Chapter. Using the improvised solicitation letters, respondents solicited cash from eight (8) bonding companies, ranging from P1, 000.00 to P2, 000.00. Respondents admitted that they actually received the amount solicited.
Respondents contended that soliciting money from any person is allowed so long as the donor has no pending cases before the courts. But the Court reminded the respondents that it had previously issued to OCA Circular No. 4-91 strictly enjoining all personnel of the lower courts under the Administrative supervision of the Office of the Court Administrator from making “any form of solicitation for contributions as it is strictly prohibited by law” and that all those found soliciting and/or receiving contributions, in cash or in kind, “from any person, whether or not a litigant or lawyer, will be dealt with severely.” The Court stated that it prohibited any form of solicitations of gift or other pecuniary or material benefits or receipts of contributions for himself/herself from any person, whether or not a litigant or lawyer, to avoid any suspicion that the major purpose of the donor is to influence the court personnel in performing official duties.
It turned out that respondents did not attend the convention of court stenographers on May 5 to 7, 2008. And when asked what happened to the money they had collected, they replied that they used the money for their children. The Court held that the improper conduct exhibited by respondents, aggravated by the fact that she never returned the money and appropriated it instead to personal use, clearly constituted unacceptable conduct for judicial employees, a form of “dishonestly and gross misconduct” which are grave offenses punishable under Civil Service Rules.
The Court made the following doctrinal pronouncements:
“Soliciting is prohibited under The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. Section 2, Canon I thereof provides that “[c]ourt personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any explicit or implicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions;” while Section 2(e), Canon III states that “Court personnel shall not x x x solicit or accept any gift, loan, gratuity, discount, favor, hospitality or service under circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that a major purpose of the donor is to influence the court personnel in performing official duties.” Such acts are strictly prohibited to avoid the perception that in exchange for certain favors, court personnel can be influenced to act in favor of a certain party or person. Thus, in Villaros v. Orpiano, the Court emphasized that:
Time and time again, we have stressed that the behavior of all employees and officials involved in the administration of justice, from judges to the most junior clerks, is circumscribed with a heavy responsibility. Their conduct must be guided by strict propriety and decorum at all times in order to merit and maintain the public’s respect for and trust in the judiciary. Needless to say, all court personnel must conduct themselves in a manner exemplifying integrity, honesty and uprightness.
The respondent's act of demanding money from the complainant hardly meets the foregoing standard. Improper solicitation from litigants is a grave offense that carries an equally grave penalty.
Again, in De Leon-Dela Cruz v. Recacho, the following pronouncement was made:
The Court reiterates its policy not to tolerate or condone any conduct, act or omission that falls short of the exacting norms of public office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the judiciary. Thus, it will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon its employees in order not to diminish the people's faith in our justice system.
The Court stressed that improper solicitation carried a “grave penalty”. Under Section 52(A) (11) of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dismissal is the penalty for improper solicitation at the first offense. Section 58(a) of the same Rule provides that the penalty of dismissal shall carry with it the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service, unless otherwise provided in the decision.
