THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-15-3315. July 19, 2017.]
SPOUSES RODEL AND ELEANOR CAÑOS, petitioners, vs.ATTY. LOUISE MARIE THERESE B. ESCOBIDO, CLERK OF COURT V, BRANCH 19, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], DIGOS CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 19, 2017, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-15-3315 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3978-P] — (Spouses Rodel and Eleanor Caños v. Atty. Louise Marie Therese B. Escobido, Clerk of Court V, Branch 19, Regional Trial Court [RTC], Digos City). — On February 6, 2017, the Court rendered a Decision finding Atty. Louise Marie Therese B. Escobido (Escobido), Clerk of Court V, Branch 19, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Digos City, guilty of willful failure to pay just debts and conduct prejudicial to the service, and penalized her as follows:
WHEREFORE, respondent Louise Marie Therese B. Escobido, Clerk of Court V, Branch 19, Regional Trial Court, Digos City is adjudged GUILTY of willful failure to pay just debts and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, for which she is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of ONE (1) YEAR. Further, she is STERNLY WARNED that commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. 1
On March 17, 2017, Escobido filed a Manifestation with Prayer (on the Decision dated February 6, 2017), 2 stating that:
(1) She received the Court's Notice of Judgment on March 3, 2017;
(2) She has tendered her Resignation Letter on March 10, 2016 to her Presiding Judge due to health reasons;
(3) She wants to avail of the Optional Retirement Program under Republic Act No. 8291 and is in the process of submitting her Application for Retirement to the Employee Welfare and Benefits Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator; and
(4) She prays for the modification of the Court's Decision such that instead of suspension, a fine be imposed upon her. TAIaHE
To support her prayer, Escobido claimed that she has been regularly paying her creditors, including complainants Spouses Rodel and Eleanor Caños (Spouses Caños), since March 2016. She attached an Affidavit executed by Spouses Caños as proof and to show that they are joining her prayer for the modification of the penalty from suspension to payment of fine. 3
Moreover, Escobido conveyed her profound regret for the embarrassment and insult that she has caused to the Court. She also claimed that the penalty of one-year suspension is too severe for her, a solo parent to her four children, three of whom are minors who depend on her for chief support. 4
Escobido likewise revealed her poor health condition, having suffered from hypertensive cardiovascular disease, pneumonia, and Koch's infection. 5
We grant the Manifestation with Prayer, which we are treating as a motion for reconsideration.
Section 48 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) allows the consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances:
Section 48. Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances. — In the determination of the penalties to be imposed, mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered.
The following circumstances shall be appreciated:
a. Physical illness;
b. Good faith;
c. Malice;
d. Time and place of offense;
e. Taking undue advantage of official position;
f. Taking undue advantage of subordinate;
g. Undue disclosure of confidential information;
h. Use of government property in the commission of the offense;
i. Habituality;
j. Offense is committed during office hours and within the premises of the office or building;
k. Employment of fraudulent means to commit or conceal the offense;
l. First offense;
m. Education;
n. Length of service; or
o. Other analogous circumstances.
In the appreciation thereof, the same must be invoked or pleaded by the proper party, otherwise, said circumstances will not be considered in the imposition of the proper penalty. The disciplining authority, however, in the interest of substantial justice may take and consider these circumstances motu proprio.
In several cases, we have refrained from imposing the actual administrative penalties prescribed by law or regulation in the presence of mitigating factors. Factors such as the respondent's length of service, the respondent's acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, respondent's advanced age, among other things, have had varying significance in the determination by the Court of the imposable penalty. 6 In Re: Illegal and Unauthorized Digging and Excavation Activities inside the Supreme Court Compound, Baguio City, 7 we considered the respondent's long years of service in the Judiciary of about ten (10) years as a mitigating factor to temper the penalty to be imposed on him. In Contreras-Soriano v. Salamanca, 8 the respondent displayed remorse for her excesses and shortcomings; thus, we meted out the penalty of suspension instead of dismissal. In Buenaventura v. Mabalot, 9 we appreciated the respondent's health condition, having undergone bypass operation, as a mitigating circumstance.
In this case, there are also various mitigating circumstances which may be appreciated in Escobido's favor. For one, she has dedicated almost fourteen (14) years of service in the Judiciary. She has also humbled herself, acknowledged her infractions, and expressed feelings of remorse for her actions. In fact, as confirmed by the complainants, Escobido has started to pay her debts in installments. We also cannot turn a blind eye on her poor health condition and status as the only breadwinner of her family. All these mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances of willful failure to pay just debts, bad faith, and the fact that this was not her first offense, and thus, warrant the reduction of the penalty of suspension. However, in light of Escobido's resignation on March 10, 2016, the penalty of fine, in lieu of suspension, would be more feasible. Considering all the foregoing circumstances, we find that a fine equivalent to Escobido's salary for two (2) months is just and appropriate.
WHEREFORE, the Manifestation with Prayer (which we treat as a motion for reconsideration) is GRANTED. Our Decision dated February 6, 2017 is hereby MODIFIED. In lieu of suspension, respondent Louise Marie Therese B. Escobido is ordered to pay a FINE equivalent to her salary for two (2) months, which should be deducted from her retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED." cDHAES
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. A.M. No. P-15-3315, February 6, 2017.
2.Rollo, pp. 176-178.
3.Id. at 183-184.
4.Id. at 177.
5.Id. at 182.
6.Office of the Court Administrator v. Aguilar, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2087, June 7, 2011, 651 SCRA 13, 25.
7. A.M. Nos. 2016-03-SC & 16-06-07-SC, February 21, 2017.
8. A.M. No. P-13-3119, February 10, 2014, 715 SCRA 580.
9. A.M. No. P-09-2726, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 1.