Office of the Court Administrator v. Abarintos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An anonymous letter accused respondent Anna Marie Abarintos, a Records Officer IV at the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, of tampering with the receipt date of a Petition for Review to favor her husband's kumpadre. The letter also alleged that Abarintos stole her officemate's ATM card and withdrew P10,000.00 without consent. Abarintos denied the tampering charge, stating it was a misunderstanding and a personal issue regarding the ATM card. She resigned from her position shortly after. Procedural History: The administrative complaint, initially an anonymous letter, was referred to the Court of Appeals, Cebu station, for investigation. The case was later re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and then transferred to the Court of Appeals, Manila, for investigation. After hearings, the Investigating Justice found the tampering charge unsupported but found sufficient evidence for the unauthorized withdrawal, recommending disqualification from public office for one year. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with the grave misconduct finding, also considering it dishonesty, and recommended a P20,000.00 fine, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from public office, given Abarintos' resignation. The Petition: This Court reviewed the case based on the Investigating Justice's and OCA's recommendations. The Court found the charge of tampering unsupported by substantial evidence, noting that the petition was indeed filed on November 4, 2010, and the respondent, as head of the Judicial Records Division, was not prohibited from receiving pleadings. However, the Court affirmed the findings of dishonesty and grave misconduct regarding the unauthorized withdrawal of funds from her officemate's ATM card, supported by CCTV evidence and the respondent's admission and partial restitution. While acknowledging the gravity of the offenses, the Court, considering Abarintos' remorse, first-time offense status, and resignation to spare her family embarrassment, reduced the recommended fine to P5,000.00, with forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leave) and perpetual disqualification from government employment.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent is guilty of tampering the date of receipt of the Petition for Review in CA-G.R. SP No. 05464. Whether the respondent is guilty of taking her officemate's ATM card and making an unauthorized withdrawal therefrom. What is the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the respondent, considering her resignation and other mitigating circumstances.
Ruling
The Court found the respondent NOT GUILTY of tampering the date of receipt of the Petition for Review. However, the Court found the respondent GUILTY of Dishonesty and Gross Misconduct for taking her officemate's ATM card and making an unauthorized withdrawal. The Court imposed a fine of ₱5,000.00, forfeiture of government benefits (except accrued leave credits), and perpetual disqualification from employment in any government branch or instrumentality.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of tampering: The Court held that the charge of tampering was not supported by substantial evidence. While the OCA relied on the fact that it was not respondent's duty to receive pleadings and that she received it after office hours, the Court found no proof that the date was altered or interpolated. Atty. Enjambre, Assistant Clerk of Court, testified that the pleading was indeed received on November 4, 2010, as indicated by the stamp and respondent's signature. The subsequent stamp indicating receipt by the 19th Division on November 5, 2010, was explained as a procedural step after initial receipt. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition was dismissed on grounds other than tardiness. The Court also found no proof that respondent, as head of the Judicial Records Division, was prohibited from receiving pleadings, citing the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court which outlines duties including receiving and reporting pleadings. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties was invoked, and the Court stated that circulars on working hours are not meant to deny public service. On the charge of unauthorized withdrawal: The Court affirmed the findings of the Investigating Justice and the OCA that the respondent committed grave misconduct and dishonesty. The Court defined misconduct as a transgression of established rules, and grave misconduct as involving corruption or willful intent to violate the law. Dishonesty was defined as a disposition to lie, cheat, or deceive, implying untrustworthiness and lack of integrity. The Court found substantial evidence, including CCTV footage and the testimony of Elizabeth Gilos, that respondent took Gilos' ATM card, withdrew ₱10,000.00 without consent, admitted to the act, and made a partial payment of ₱2,000.00. The Court cited Rojas, Jr. v. Mina where a similar act of stealing and encashing checks constituted gross misconduct and dishonesty. The Court emphasized that as an officer of the judiciary, respondent is held to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity, and any act diminishing faith in the judiciary will not be countenanced. On the appropriate penalty: The Court agreed that resignation does not absolve respondent from liability. While dishonesty and grave misconduct are grave offenses warranting dismissal, the penalty of dismissal could no longer be imposed due to her resignation. The Court considered the OCA's recommendation of a fine and forfeiture of benefits. However, the Court reduced the recommended fine from ₱20,000.00 to ₱5,000.00, citing respondent's status as a first-time offender, her eventual admission and partial restitution, her decision not to present controverting evidence, and her resignation to spare her family embarrassment. These circumstances were deemed to evince sincere remorse and repentance, leading the Court to apply compassion and mercy, referencing Apiag v. Judge Cantero.
Main Doctrine
Resignation from service does not extricate court employees from the consequences of their acts committed while in office, and administrative penalties such as fines and disqualification may still be imposed.