EN BANC
[A.M. No. P-14-3213. January 17, 2017.][Formerly A.M. No. 12-5-91-RTC]
ACCREDITED LOCAL PUBLISHERS OF THE WEEKLY ILOCANDIA INQUIRER, THE NORTH LUZONIAN COURIER, THE AMIANAN TRIBUNE, THE WEEKLY CITY BULLETIN, ET AL., complainants, vs. SAMUEL L. DEL ROSARIO, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, BAUANG, LA UNION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JANUARY 17, 2017, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-14-3213 [Formerly A.M. No. 12-5-91-RTC] (Accredited Local Publishers of the Weekly Ilocandia Inquirer, The North Luzonian Courier, The Amianan Tribune, The Weekly City Bulletin, et al. v. Samuel L. Del Rosario, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Bauang, La Union). — This resolves respondent Samuel L. Del Rosario's motion for reconsideration of his dismissal from service in the Court's Decision dated 12 July 2016. Respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion 1 stating that he received the Court's Decision on 11 August 2016 and he adopts the attached Letter dated 15 August 2016 as his motion for reconsideration. In his Letter, respondent avers that he was a victim of false and wrong recommendation by Judge Rose Mary M. Alim (Judge Alim) as he did not know that the complainants in this case had already filed their affidavits of desistance so he could have filed a motion for dismissal. He attached to his Letter the following documents:
1) Documents pertaining to the dismissed case against respondent in the 'Borromeo case';
2) Medical certificates, clinical abstract and receipts of purchased medicines to prove his illness;
3) Affidavits of different persons to prove that they have already withdrawn the complaints against respondent;
4) Records of the case that respondent possessed;
5) Performance Ratings; and
6) Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) taken during the investigation conducted by Judge Alim.
We deny the motion.
Respondent's main contention is the withdrawal of the complaint against him by different publishers. However, in Dela Cueva v. Omaga, 2 this Court emphasized that: cTDaEH
x x x complainant's change of heart in deciding not to pursue the case against respondent is of no moment as it has no controlling significance in this administrative case. The long standing policy is:
Administrative actions cannot depend on the will or pleasure of the complainant who may, for reasons of his own, condone what may be detestable. Neither can the Court be bound by the unilateral act of the complainant in a matter relating to its disciplinary power x x x Desistance cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction to investigate and decide the complaint against the respondent. To be sure, public interest is at stake in the conduct and actuations of officials and employees of the judiciary. And the program and efforts of this Court in improving the delivery of justice to the people should not be frustrated and put to naught by private arrangements between the parties.
This is so because the issue in administrative cases is not whether the complainant has a cause of action against the respondent but, rather, whether the employee against whom the complaint is filed has breached the norms and standards of service in the judiciary. As such, this Court, having disciplinary authority over employees of the lower courts, has the power and duty to pursue this administrative matter regardless of complainant's desistance.
Moreover, proof of his illness has no bearing in this case. The sole act of receiving money from the publishers, whatever the reason may be, is the antithesis of being a court employee. 'The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel requires that court personnel avoid conflicts of interest in performing official duties. It mandates that court personnel should not receive tips or other remunerations for assisting or attending to parties engaged in transactions or involved in actions or proceedings with the judiciary.' 3 In Villahermosa, Sr. v. Sarcia, we held that 'court personnel, regardless of position or rank, are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the strict standards of integrity and morality. Indeed, the special nature of [court personnel's] duties and responsibilities is recognized through the adoption of a separate Code of Conduct especially for them. The acts of court personnel reflect on the judiciary. Thus, it is necessary that they uphold the ideals of the judiciary.' 4 Alleged good intentions to help party-litigants are self-serving and will not absolve the misconduct committed by court employees. 5 There is no defense for receiving money from party-litigants or parties engaged in transactions or involved in actions or proceedings with the judiciary. The act itself makes court employees guilty of grave misconduct. They must bear the penalty of dismissal. 6
Indeed, '[a]s a court employee, [one] should be more circumspect in [one's] behavior and should [steer] clear of any situation casting the slightest of doubt on [one's] conduct.' 7
Thus, this Court finds no justifiable reason to modify or reverse the dismissal from the service of respondent. cSaATC
WHEREFORE, respondent's Manifestation is hereby NOTED and his Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED." (adv6)
Very truly yours,(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, unpaginated.
2. 637 Phil. 14 (2010).
3. 726 Phil. 408 (2014).
4.Id.
5. SeeSabado, Jr. v. Jornada, 603 Phil. 12 (2009).
6.Supra note 3.
7.Id.