In The case of LIBERTY M. TOLEDO vs. LIZA E. PEREZ, Court Stenographer III, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Manila, EN BANC, A.M. Nos. P-03-1677 and P-07-2317, July 15, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court found the respondent Court Stenographer III Liza E. Perez, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Manila, GUILTY of CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE, but since she had already resigned from the service, the Court FINED her P40,000.
Let me digest the case for legal research purposes of the visitors of this blog.
On 10 April 2000, Celso Ramirez (Ramirez), messenger of NYK Fil-Japan Shipping Corporation (NYK), went to the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila, to pay NYK’s business tax for the second quarter of 2000. Ramirez gave Local Treasury Operations Officer I Rogelio Reyes (Reyes) PCI Bank Manager’s Check No. 0000061101 dated 10 April 2000. The check amounted to P339,881.35 and was payable to the “City Treasurer Manila.” Reyes issued Ramirez a fake receipt.
Abner L. Aniceto (Aniceto), employee of Total Distribution & Logistics Systems Incorporated (Total), also went to the Office of the City Treasurer to pay Total’s business tax, mayor’s permit, municipal license, and other regulatory fees for the second, third and fourth quarters of 1999 and for the first, second, third and fourth quarters of 2000. Aniceto alleged that he gave Revenue Collection Clerk I German G. Tamayo (Tamayo) of the License Division Equitable PCI Bank Manager’s Check No. 0000023175 dated 11 April 2000. The check amounted to P61,845.92 and was payable to the “Office of the Treasurer Manila.” Tamayo issued Aniceto fake receipts.
The two checks ended up in the hands of a certain Rogelio Clemente (Clemente) who was a fixer. Clemente gave the checks to Jesus Agustin, Jr. (Agustin, Jr.) who was a friend of Perez. Agustin, Jr. approached Perez and asked her to rediscount the checks. Perez agreed on the condition that the checks will be accepted and cleared by the bank. Perez deposited the checks in her personal savings account with Land Bank and the bank accepted and cleared the checks.
Toledo discovered the fake receipt of NYK and, on 18 July 2000, she called the corporation to inform them about it. NYK’s chief accountant, comptroller, and Ramirez immediately went to the Office of the City Treasurer to settle the issue. They brought a copy of PCI Bank Manager’s Check No. 0000061101 as evidence of payment of their business tax.
After investigating the matter, Toledo discovered that PCI Bank Manager’s Check No. 0000061101 was deposited in the personal savings account of Perez. Thus, in a complaint dated 27 July 2000 and addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Toledo charged Perez with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Meanwhile, Toledo discovered the fake receipts of Total and, on 2 April 2001, Total’s manager and Aniceto went to the Office of the City Treasurer to settle the issue. After investigating the matter, Toledo discovered that Equitable PCI Bank Manager’s Check No. 0000023175 was deposited in the personal savings account of Perez. Toledo filed a complaint dated 4 April 2001 with the Office of the Ombudsman charging Perez with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Respondent argued that she was an INNOCENT VICTIM. Respondent deposited and/or presented the check for payment at Land Bank and the same was not dishonored nor did the bank question the check. Thus, respondent presumed in good faith that there was no irregularity on the subject checks as she was not familiar with the banking rules and no less than the bank was in a better position to ascertain the irregularity on the checks. Respondent further alleged that the complainant had no right to malign herein respondent by tagging herein respondent as a “cohort” or “co-conspirator” as herein respondent had no knowledge how the said checks reached the hand of Mr. Jesus Agustin, Jr. In fact, she said she had filed the necessary legal action against Mr. Jesus Agustin, Jr.
In a letter dated 27 March 2003, Perez formally tendered her resignation effective 1 April 2003.
The investigating judge reported in 2006 that (1) 38 checks — all payable to the City Treasurer, City of Manila — were deposited in the personal savings account of Perez; (2) the total amount of the 38 checks was P1,980,784.78; and (3) Land Bank accepted and cleared the 38 checks. He recommended that the cases against Perez be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. He stated that the aggregate amount of the checks were rediscounted by Liza E. Perez who had substantial deposits with the Land Bank, Taft Avenue branch; she made it clear with Jesus Agustin, Jr., a close friend and the source of the checks, that if the Land Bank would not accept them for deposit, she would return the same; there was no indication whatsoever that she exerted any pressure on the bank to accept the checks for deposit; upon the discovery of the fraud, she not only sued Agustin but also the bank; there was likewise no proof that she knew German G. Tamayo who allegedly was entrusted with the check of TOTAL, and Rogelio Clemente, the alleged fixer who approached Agustin for the rediscounting of the checks.
However, in its Report dated 1 March 2007, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that Perez failed to live up to the high standards of honesty and integrity. The OCA stated that, “While Perez swears to the high heavens that her ‘check rediscounting’ activities were done in a private manner, it cannot be denied that such activities dragged the Court into the fake receipts scam at the City Treasurer’s Office.” The OCA recommended that Perez be found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and that the monetary equivalent of six months suspension be deducted from her benefits.
The Court found respondent Perez liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Section 52(A)(20), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as a grave offense. It is punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense and by dismissal for the second offense.
The Rules do not provide a definition or enumerate acts that constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. In general, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service refers to acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish — or tend to diminish — the people’s faith in the Judiciary. Perez’s act of depositing 38 checks payable to the City Treasurer, City of Manila, amounting to P1,980,784.78 reflected adversely on the integrity of the Judiciary, the Court said.
Perez should have been alarmed by the facts that (1) all 38 checks, amounting to P1,980,784.78, were payable to the City Treasurer, City of Manila; and (2) her friend, Agustin, Jr., procured the checks from Clemente who was known to be a fixer. As a court employee, Perez was expected to comply with the strict standards required of all public officers and employees — her actions must have been beyond suspicion.
Perez claimed that her transactions with Agustin, Jr. had no relation to her position as court stenographer and that they were private in nature. The Court was not impressed. The image of the Judiciary is mirrored in the conduct of its personnel whether inside or outside the court, it held. Thus, court personnel must exhibit a high sense of integrity not only in the performance of their official duties but also in their personal affairs. Public servants must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity in their performance of official duties and in their personal affairs, so as to preserve the Court’s good name and standing. The administration of justice is a sacred task.
In fine, the Court held that while there was nothing wrong in engaging in private business, caution should be taken to prevent the occurrence of dubious circumstances that may impair the image of the Judiciary. Every act of impropriety ultimately affects the dignity of the Judiciary, and the people’s faith in it. As the OCA correctly stated, Perez’s “activities dragged the Court into the fake receipts scam at the City Treasurer’s Office.” Perez must be held accountable.
