Quinio v. Borbolla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dr. Filemon Quinio filed a complaint for Estafa Thru Falsification of Public Document against Anita Borbolla, a Senior Clerk in the City Court of Manila, Branch IX. Quinio alleged that he gave Borbolla P1,000.00 cash to post as bail bond for Criminal Case No. F-161106. Borbolla allegedly presented a falsified recall order and official receipts, misappropriating P900.00 of the bail money. Procedural History: The complaint was referred to the Supreme Court for administrative investigation. The case was assigned to Executive Judge Gerino M. Tolentino and later investigated by Judge Rogue A. Tamayo. Judge Tamayo submitted a report finding prima facie evidence of falsification and estafa. The complainant, Dr. Quinio, subsequently filed an Affidavit of Desistance, stating he was no longer interested in prosecuting the charges due to human compassion, Borbolla's appeal for forgiveness, and the adverse effect of a protracted trial on his profession and business interests. He also noted that Borbolla had subsequently paid the full P1,000.00 bail. The City Fiscal's Office dropped the criminal complaint based on the desistance. However, the Supreme Court, by Resolution dated June 21, 1977, directed the Executive Judge of the City Court of Manila to proceed with the investigation to determine Borbolla's fitness for continued employment. Executive Judge Avelino Constantino reported that Borbolla submitted her resignation effective July 29, 1977, citing her departure for Saudi Arabia with her husband, and stated that further investigation was unnecessary due to her voluntary separation from the judiciary. The Petition: This administrative matter concerns the findings of guilt against Anita Borbolla for dishonesty in the discharge of her duties as a senior clerk. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence presented, including the complainant's affidavit and annexes, the respondent's reply, and the investigating judge's report. The Court considered the complainant's subsequent letter of desistance and affidavit of desistance, as well as the dropping of the criminal case by the City Fiscal's Office. Despite the desistance, the Court, in a prior resolution, directed the continuation of the administrative investigation. The Court ultimately considered Borbolla's resignation and its implications on the administrative proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Anita Borbolla is guilty of dishonesty in the discharge of her duties as a senior clerk in the City Court of Manila. Whether the resignation of respondent Anita Borbolla extinguishes her administrative liability.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Anita Borbolla guilty of dishonesty in the discharge of her duties. In view of her abandonment of office through resignation, no administrative penalty could be imposed, except to perpetually disqualify her from appointment to any position in any branch of the government service, including government-owned and/or controlled instrumentalities and agencies. The Court also directed that a copy of the decision be furnished the Secretary of Justice for appropriate prosecution of the criminal case erroneously dropped by the City Fiscal's Office.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found prima facie evidence that respondent Anita Borbolla committed Estafa Thru Falsification of Public Document. The investigating judge's report highlighted visible alterations on official receipts and a recall order, indicating that the date and amount on Official Receipt No. 43410K were altered from December 10, 1973, for P100.00 to October 22, 1973, for P1,000.00. Furthermore, Official Receipt No. 4352326-Q, annotated on the recall order as dated October 22, 1973, for P1,000.00, was verified to be issued on September 6, 1973, for only P10.00 and not in the name of the complainant. These falsifications, coupled with the alleged misappropriation of P900.00, constituted dishonesty in the discharge of her duties as a public servant. The Court noted that the respondent's explanations regarding work pressure and haste were insufficient to overcome the evidence of falsification and misappropriation. On Issue 2: The Court held that the resignation of respondent Anita Borbolla did not extinguish her administrative liability. While the respondent tendered her resignation effective July 29, 1977, alleging departure for Saudi Arabia, this resignation was considered an abandonment of office. The Court's prior resolution dated June 21, 1977, had already directed the continuation of the investigation to determine her fitness to remain in the judiciary, indicating that the administrative case would proceed regardless of her employment status. The Court's finding of guilt for dishonesty, a crime involving moral turpitude, led to the imposition of perpetual disqualification from public service, a penalty that transcends mere employment status. The Court also emphasized the need for appropriate prosecution of the criminal case, which had been erroneously dropped by the City Fiscal's Office.
Main Doctrine
An employee charged with dishonesty and estafa through falsification of public documents, who resigns during the pendency of the administrative investigation, remains liable. The resignation does not extinguish the administrative case, and the Court can still impose penalties, including perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and can direct the prosecution of the criminal case.