Office of the Court Administrator v. Saquin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Teodoro L. Saquin, a Clerk II in the Property Division of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), was apprehended on January 17, 1999, while attempting to leave the Supreme Court compound with office supplies (diskette and magic tape) without proper authorization. He claimed the items were requested by his sister. Subsequently, on April 26, 1999, the Officer-in-Charge of the Property Division reported pilferage of supplies. Respondent was summoned and admitted to stealing two Canon electronic calculators, one Casio electronic calculator, and seventy pieces of OKI computer ribbons between February and April 28, 1999. In an affidavit dated May 5, 1999, he admitted stealing an undetermined quantity of office supplies and selling them to sidewalk vendors, citing personal needs and necessity. He also stated he was forced to commit the thefts due to his dependence on illegal drugs and voluntarily offered himself for confinement. He was preventively suspended on May 5, 1999. Procedural History: The Court Administrator, on December 2, 1994, found respondent guilty of grave misconduct and recommended his dismissal from the service, forfeiture of benefits, prejudice to re-entry into government service, and referral to the Department of Justice for criminal case filing. The Court Administrator opined that the offense constituted grave misconduct, citing The Court Administrator v. William C. Sevillo. The Petition: This resolution addresses the findings and recommendations of the Court Administrator regarding the administrative case against Teodoro L. Saquin.
Issue(s)
Whether the pilferage of office supplies by a court employee constitutes grave dishonesty and grave misconduct. Whether respondent Teodoro L. Saquin was accorded due process during the administrative investigation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Court Administrator in toto. Respondent Teodoro L. Saquin was found GUILTY of grave dishonesty and grave misconduct. He was ordered DISMISSED from the government service, with forfeiture of all his leave credits and retirement benefits, and with prejudice to re-entry to any government entity or any government owned or controlled corporation. The records were referred to the Department of Justice for investigation and filing of appropriate criminal proceedings, if found necessary.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave dishonesty and grave misconduct: The Court held that the pilferage of office supplies by a court employee constitutes grave dishonesty and grave misconduct. The Court reiterated the principle that the conduct of judges and court personnel must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum at all times but must also be above suspicion. By stealing office supplies, the respondent has blatantly degraded the judiciary and diminished the respect and regard of the people for the court and its personnel. Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty. The Court found that the respondent, who readily admitted having stolen office supplies belonging to the Supreme Court on more than one occasion, was no better than a common thief and did not deserve to stay a minute longer in the judicial service. This ruling was applied with more reason to the respondent's case, given the repeated nature of his offenses. On the issue of due process: The Court found that the respondent was accorded his right to due process during the administrative investigation. He was given an opportunity to answer and be heard on the charges against him. The memorandum dated May 5, 1999, clearly and distinctly set forth the charge against him. He submitted his explanation dated July 23, 1999, in which he admitted his fault and even expressed the opinion that his acts merit the penalty of dismissal. Therefore, the case was ripe for evaluation, report, and recommendation by the Office of the Court Administrator.
Main Doctrine
The pilferage of office supplies by a court employee constitutes grave dishonesty and grave misconduct, warranting dismissal from the service, forfeiture of benefits, and referral for criminal prosecution.