EN BANC
[A.M. No. P-05-2064. January 12, 2016.]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs. CLERK OF COURT JOCELYN G. CABALLERO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, KIDAPAWAN, NORTH COTABATO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JANUARY 12, 2016, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-05-2064 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Clerk of Court Jocelyn G. Caballero, Regional Trial Court, Kidapawan, North Cotabato). — Before this Court is a Petition for judicial clemency filed by Atty. Jocelyn Caballero (Caballero), former Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan City, North Cotabato, with prayer for the reinstatement of her retirement benefits.
To recapitulate:
On March 2, 2010, prompted by a financial audit on different judiciary funds of the RTC of Kidapawan City, the Court found Caballero administratively liable for dishonesty and gross neglect of duty for numerous violations of the Rules of Court and pertinent court circulars on the procedures of collections and deposits of Court funds resulting to cash shortages and discrepancies. The dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. JOCELYN G. CABALLERO, Clerk of Court, RTC, Kidapawan City, North Cotabato, is hereby found GUILTY of GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY and DISHONESTY. She is ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. . . . .
SO ORDERED.
Caballero filed motions for reconsideration and cited analogous cases where the Court has been allegedly "lenient" in its manner of disciplining erring court employees. However, in the Resolutions dated June 15, 2010 and September 21, 2010, respectively, the Court denied with finality said motions for failure to raise substantial matters that would warrant the reversal of the decision.
In a Letter dated September 16, 2015, Caballero appeal for judicial clemency. She averred that more than five (5) years have already lapsed from the time of her dismissal, and all these time she experienced financial constraints as a result of her dismissal. Caballero added that she is already 64 years old and reiterated anew her previous prayers that the Court be more lenient upon her and allow her to enjoy the fruits of her retirement.
In A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC (Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for Judicial Clemency), 1 the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency, to wit:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include, but should not be limited, to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency. 2
In the instant petition, Caballero's prayer for clemency is not supported by any single proof of her professed repentance. In fact in her appeal, Caballero continues to question the Court's Decision, to wit: HEITAD
That on March 2, 2010, a Decision was rendered in my case and I was dismissed from service due to gross neglect of duty and dishonesty for the delay in the remittance of cash collections in violation of Supreme Court Circulars Nos. 5-93 and No. 13-92 and for my alleged failure to keep proper records of may collections and remittances which is punishable by dismissal. That I want to negate the allegations of the Court in its ruling that I have failed to keep proper records of my collections and remittances for which the undersigned was found guilty of Gross Neglect ofDuty punishable, even for the first time, by dismissal . . . . 3 (Emphasis ours)
We note that in all of Caballero's motions for reconsideration, while admitting that she has violated certain Court circulars, she would, however, offer lame excuses to justify said violations. This present appeal for judicial clemency is no different as Caballero likewise failed to sincerely acknowledge her indiscretions and claim full responsibility for her misdemeanor.
It must be emphasized that judicial clemency, as an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts. The Court will grant it only if there is a showing that it is merited. Proof of reformation and a showing of potential and promise are indispensable. 4
Likewise, apart from Caballero's own declaration of involvement in civic works and organizations in North Cotabato, there is no evidence to show that she has indeed been active in these activities. The IBP's Certification that Caballero has been active in the legal aid program of its chapter also fails to convince in the absence of any showing of proof of specific activity. Considering respondent's numerous transgressions, it becomes more imperative to require factual support for her allegations of remorse and reformation. 5
Judicial clemency is not a privilege nor a right that an erring court employee can avail of at any time. This Court will take into consideration the nature of the charge/s for which became the basis of the dismissal, his or her conduct subsequent to the dismissal, and the time that has elapsed in between the dismissal and the appeal for judicial clemency.
While the Court sympathizes with Caballero's unfortunate financial condition, we however must stress that in considering the granting for judicial clemency, the duty of the Court is to determine whether an erring court employee has established moral reformation and rehabilitation and has exhibited deep remorse for what he/she did. Apparently, the last five years that had passed is not yet sufficient for Caballero to reflect on her professional conduct, to show deep remorse and repentance, and to realize the gravity of her mistakes. Thus, the present appeal for judicial clemency should be denied.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal for Judicial Clemency filed by Atty. Jocelyn Caballero is hereby DENIED." (adv26)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 560 Phil. 1 (2007).
2. Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for Judicial Clemency, supra, at 5-6. (Citations omitted)
3. Rollo, pp. 582-583. (Emphasis ours)
4. Re: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Rolando S. Torres as a Member of the Philippine Bar, A.C. No. 5161, August 25, 2015.
5. Ali v. Pacalna, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1505, November 27, 2013, 710 SCRA 632, 639.