Office of the Court Administrator v. Racadag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Pablo R. Racadag, then acting clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55 in Irosin, Sorsogon, was charged with malversation of public funds under Article 217, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. He allegedly allowed Attys. Henry Roxas and Jaime Fortes to appropriate P12,000.00, representing redemption money deposited by Jose T. Mercader, for their personal use, disregarding directives to deposit the money with the Philippine National Bank. This caused damage to Jose T. Mercader and the government. Procedural History: An administrative complaint for malversation of public funds and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service was filed against Racadag. He failed to submit an answer or comment despite notices. Meanwhile, before the Sandiganbayan, Racadag pleaded not guilty, jumped bail, and remained at large, leading to a trial in absentia. On June 30, 1989, the Sandiganbayan found him guilty, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty, perpetual special disqualification, a fine of P12,000.00, indemnity to the government, and costs. The judgment became final and executory on July 11, 1989. The Petition: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the dismissal of Racadag from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and prejudice to reinstatement, considering his failure to explain the administrative charge and his conviction by the Sandiganbayan.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent's failure to submit an explanation to the administrative charge warrants dismissal. Whether the respondent's conviction for malversation of public funds and subsequent jumping of bail warrant dismissal from the service.
Ruling
The respondent, Pablo R. Racadag, Court Interpreter of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Naga City, is hereby DISMISSED and SEPARATED from the service effective July 11, 1989, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, agency, or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of failure to explain: The Court found the recommendation for dismissal well-taken. The continued failure of the respondent to offer any explanation regarding the administrative charge speaks ill of his position. On the issue of conviction and jumping bail: His act of jumping bail and going into hiding during the trial of his criminal case before the Sandiganbayan unequivocally revealed his guilt of the charge against him. The conviction by the Sandiganbayan for the crime of malversation of public funds, which carries the penalty of perpetual special disqualification, erased any doubt as to his culpability. This disqualification renders him ineligible to hold any public office, reinforcing the necessity of his dismissal from the service. The OCA's recommendation for dismissal with forfeiture of retirement benefits and prejudice to re-employment is therefore justified by the respondent's conduct and conviction.
Main Doctrine
A public employee found guilty of malversation of public funds and who has jumped bail and remained at large is dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and prejudice to re-employment.