In Faelden v. Lagura, the Supreme Court of the Philippines emphatically affirmed that dishonesty and grave misconduct within the public service, particularly within the judiciary, will not be tolerated. The Court underscored that the conduct of every employee in the judiciary, from the judge to the utility aide, must be beyond reproach to preserve the court’s integrity and the public’s trust. Stealing and encashing someone else’s check, as was done in this case, is a blatant violation of this principle, leading to dismissal from service.

Justice on Trial: When a Court Employee Betrays Public Trust

This case arose from a complaint filed by Lydia L. Faelden, a Court Stenographer, against Carina Divinagracia Lagura, a Utility Aide at the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City. Faelden accused Lagura of grave misconduct and gross dishonesty for stealing and encashing her check, which was issued by the Supreme Court Health and Welfare Plan as reimbursement for medical expenses. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated the matter and recommended Lagura’s dismissal from government service, a recommendation that the Supreme Court ultimately upheld.

The undisputed facts revealed that Lagura had stolen Land Bank of the Philippines Check No. 508278 issued in Faelden’s name. She then negotiated the check by procuring an Authorization to Purchase (ATP) at a local supermarket, where she used it to buy groceries. Later, Lagura attempted to retrieve the check from the supermarket, offering to pay its cash equivalent, further indicating her guilt. This brazen act prompted Faelden to file both an administrative case and a criminal case against Lagura.

Despite being directed by the OCA to file a comment on the complaint, Lagura failed to do so. This silence was construed as an admission of the charges against her, in accordance with Section 32 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, which states that an admission by silence may be given in evidence against a party. This legal principle underscores the importance of responding to accusations, especially in administrative proceedings, as failure to do so can have severe consequences.

The OCA, in its report, highlighted the seriousness of Lagura’s offenses, noting that both grave misconduct and gross dishonesty are serious offenses punishable by dismissal from service, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from government employment. The OCA cited Judge Veronica A. Dondiego vs. Petrono D. Cuevas, Jr., a case which reinforced the stringent standards of conduct expected of court employees. Citing another case, the OCA drew attention to the case of Judge Layosa v. Salamanca, where an employee was similarly dismissed for stealing and encashing the judge’s check.

By stealing and encashing the complainant’s check, she blatantly degraded the judiciary and diminished the respect and regard of the people for the court and its personnel.

The Supreme Court echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that every employee of the judiciary must exemplify integrity, morality, and honesty. These qualities are not merely expected but are essential to maintaining the court’s good name and standing as a true temple of justice. The Court stressed that the image of a court is reflected in the conduct of its personnel, from the highest judge to the lowest employee.

Faelden’s subsequent affidavit of desistance, where she stated that Lagura had admitted her actions and promised to resign, did not deter the Court. The Court clarified that an administrative case does not depend on the whims of the parties involved. The integrity of the judiciary is at stake, and the Court has a duty to root out misconduct among its employees, regardless of whether the complainant wishes to pursue the case. As the Court stated in Dionisio v. Gilera, the issue in administrative cases is not whether the complainant has a cause of action, but whether the employees have breached the norms and standards of the judiciary.

Lagura’s resignation, tendered but not yet acted upon, did not absolve her of administrative liability. The Court referred to Re: (1) Lost Checks Issued to the Late Roderick Roy P. Melliza, Former Clerk II, MCTC, Zaragga, Iloilo; and (2) Dropping from the Rolls of Ms. Esther T. Andres to underscore that a resignation is not complete until accepted by the proper authority and until the employee is cleared of all obligations. Therefore, Lagura remained an employee of the judiciary, subject to its disciplinary authority.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a utility aide could be dismissed for stealing and encashing a check belonging to a court stenographer, given the high standards of integrity expected of judiciary employees.
Why did the Court continue the case despite the complainant’s desistance?	The Court emphasized that administrative cases involving misconduct of judicial employees are not subject to the whims of the complainant. The overriding need to maintain public trust in the judiciary requires that erring personnel be sanctioned, regardless of desistance.
What are the consequences of being found guilty of gross dishonesty in the judiciary?	An employee found guilty of gross dishonesty faces dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any branch of the government.
Does an employee’s resignation prevent the continuation of administrative proceedings?	No, the resignation of an employee under investigation does not automatically terminate the administrative proceedings. The resignation must be accepted by the proper authority and the employee must be cleared of all obligations before it becomes fully effective.
What standard of conduct is expected of employees in the judiciary?	All employees of the judiciary, regardless of their position, are expected to exhibit the highest sense of trustworthiness, integrity, and rectitude in both their official duties and personal dealings.
What constitutes grave misconduct in the context of this case?	Grave misconduct involves the intentional violation of established rules of law or a code of conduct, especially when coupled with elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.
What rule did the Court cite regarding admission by silence?	The Court cited Section 32 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, which states that an admission by silence may be given in evidence against a party who fails to respond to accusations or directives.
What was the role of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in this case?	The OCA investigated the complaint, directed the respondent to file a comment, and ultimately recommended the respondent’s dismissal based on the evidence and the respondent’s failure to respond.

Faelden v. Lagura serves as a stern reminder to all public servants, especially those within the judiciary, that integrity and honesty are non-negotiable. Any deviation from these standards will be met with severe consequences, ensuring the preservation of public trust and the integrity of the judicial system. The Court’s unwavering stance underscores its commitment to maintaining the highest ethical standards within its ranks.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: LYDIA L. FAELDEN vs. CARINA DIVINAGRACIA LAGURA, A.M. No. P-05-1977, October 09, 2007