The Supreme Court, in Aurora B. Go v. Teresita C. Remotigue, emphasized that judiciary employees are prohibited from engaging in private business activities, even outside office hours, to maintain public trust and ensure efficient administration of justice. The Court suspended a Clerk of Court for one month without pay for violating Administrative Circular No. 5, which prohibits judiciary employees from engaging in private business. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to impartiality and dedication to public service.

Clerk of Court’s Lending Business: Can Court Employees Engage in Outside Ventures?

This case arose from an administrative complaint filed by Aurora B. Go against Teresita C. Remotigue, a Clerk of Court, for engaging in conduct unbecoming a court employee. The central issue revolved around a lending business venture between Go and Remotigue, formalized through a Trust Agreement. Go provided the capital, while Remotigue managed the lending operations, promising to share the monthly interest equally. However, disputes arose when Remotigue allegedly ceased remitting Go’s share of the interest and failed to return the capital despite demands. The Court needed to determine whether Remotigue’s involvement in this lending business violated the ethical standards set for judiciary employees.

The core of the controversy rested on Administrative Circular No. 5, which explicitly prohibits all officials and employees of the Judiciary from engaging directly in any private business, vocation, or profession. The rationale behind this prohibition is to ensure that the entire time of judiciary personnel is devoted to government service, thus guaranteeing efficiency and speedy administration of justice. This contrasts with other government employees who may be granted permission to engage in private business outside office hours.

The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining public confidence in the Judiciary. The nature of the work performed by court officials and employees requires them to serve with maximum efficiency and the highest degree of devotion to duty. The Court noted that this commitment is necessary, even if the private business, vocation, or profession would be undertaken outside office hours. The terms of the Trust Agreement solidified the business relationship between the parties, clearly showing Remotigue’s direct involvement. According to Article 1159 of the Civil Code, obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. The agreement showed that both parties expressly bound themselves to the lending business venture.

Remotigue argued that the lending business was actually a partnership with her cousin, Conchita Pepito, and that she did not use her position in the court to facilitate the lending business. The Court, however, found this defense unconvincing. The Trust Agreement mentioned only Go and Remotigue as the parties involved, with no reference to Conchita Pepito. In evaluating Remotigue’s actions, the Court relied on the provisions of Administrative Circular No. 5.

The Circular states that:

ACCORDINGLY, all officials and employees of the Judiciary are hereby enjoined from being commissioned as insurance agents or from engaging in any related activities and, to immediately desist therefrom if presently engaged thereat.

The Court reiterated that the purpose of Administrative Circular No. 5 is to ensure that the Judiciary is free from conflicts of interest and that its employees are fully dedicated to their public duties. Engaging in private business, even outside office hours, can create a perception of impropriety and undermine public trust in the Judiciary.

Considering that Remotigue’s involvement in the lending business was her first offense, and that she had rendered over 26 years of government service, the Court deemed a suspension of one month without pay to be an appropriate penalty. The Court, in numerous instances, has imposed penalties upon court employees for transgressions against Administrative Circular No. 5 depending on the magnitude of the crime perpetrated and taking into consideration, likewise, the personal history of the respondents as to the administrative cases instituted against them.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a Clerk of Court engaging in a private lending business violated Administrative Circular No. 5, which prohibits judiciary employees from engaging in private business to maintain public trust and ensure efficient service.
What is Administrative Circular No. 5?	Administrative Circular No. 5 is a directive that prohibits all officials and employees of the Judiciary from engaging directly in any private business, vocation, or profession. It aims to ensure that judiciary personnel devote their entire time to government service.
Why are judiciary employees prohibited from engaging in private business?	Judiciary employees are prohibited to prevent conflicts of interest, maintain public trust in the Judiciary, and ensure they devote their full attention and efforts to their official duties. This contributes to the efficiency and speedy administration of justice.
What was the basis of the complaint against the Clerk of Court?	The complaint was based on a Trust Agreement between the Clerk of Court and the complainant, where the Clerk of Court managed a lending business using the complainant’s capital.
What was the Clerk of Court’s defense?	The Clerk of Court argued that the lending business was a partnership with her cousin and that she did not use her position in the court to facilitate the business.
How did the Court rule in this case?	The Court found the Clerk of Court guilty of violating Administrative Circular No. 5 and suspended her from office without pay for one month, issuing a stern warning against future violations.
What factors did the Court consider in determining the penalty?	The Court considered that this was the Clerk of Court’s first offense and that she had rendered over 26 years of government service.
Does this ruling apply to all types of private business activities?	Yes, Administrative Circular No. 5 broadly prohibits judiciary employees from engaging in any private business, vocation, or profession, regardless of whether it is related to their official duties.

This case serves as a reminder to all judiciary employees of the importance of upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct. By adhering to Administrative Circular No. 5 and avoiding private business ventures, they contribute to maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the Philippine judicial system.

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: AURORA B. GO, COMPLAINANT, VS. TERESITA C. REMOTIGUE, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES-OCC, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT., A.M. NO. P-05-1969, June 12, 2008