The Supreme Court held Teodora P. Parfan, a court stenographer, guilty of gross misconduct for misappropriating funds intended for an amicable settlement. This ruling emphasizes the high standard of honesty and discipline expected of public servants in the judiciary, particularly concerning their handling of entrusted funds. The Court underscored that such actions undermine public confidence in the justice system and warrant severe penalties, reinforcing that court personnel must uphold the highest ethical standards in their official duties.

When “Tita Dory” Betrayed the Court’s Trust: The Case of the Misappropriated Settlement

Rowell Abella, facing Frustrated Homicide charges, and Ruben De Ocampo, the victim’s father, agreed to settle their case through court mediation. Teodora P. Parfan, a court stenographer known as “Tita Dory,” facilitated the payment terms, where Abella would pay De Ocampo P72,000 in installments. However, Abella later discovered that De Ocampo had not received the full amount, revealing that Parfan had been pocketing portions of the payments. This led to an administrative complaint against Parfan, accusing her of misconduct. The central legal question is whether Parfan’s actions constituted simple or gross misconduct and what penalties should apply, considering her role in facilitating the settlement and the trust placed upon her as a court employee.

Misconduct, as defined by jurisprudence, involves a violation of established rules, especially unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. To qualify as misconduct, the act must directly relate to the performance of official duties. The Supreme Court has consistently held that public servants must maintain the highest standards of honesty and integrity. In Committee on Security and Safety, Court of Appeals v. Dianco, the Court stated that:

Misconduct in office has a definite and well-understood legal meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his character as a private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the officer x x x. It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office x x x.

For misconduct to be considered grave, it must involve corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard established rules, supported by substantial evidence. The absence of these elements typically results in a finding of simple misconduct. Corruption, in this context, is defined as an official wrongfully using their position to secure benefits for themselves or others, contrary to duty and the rights of others.

In Neri v. Office of the Ombudsman, the Court clarified that:

Corruption is an “act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses [their] station or character to procure some benefit for [them]self or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.” Flagrant disregard of rules, on the other hand, is present when there is an “open defiance of a customary rule” or “repeated voluntary disregard of established rules” or when an officer arrogated unto [them]self responsibilities that were clearly beyond [their] duties.

The Court emphasized the judiciary’s demand for impeccable conduct from its employees. In Dela Rama v. De Leon, it was underscored that the judiciary will not tolerate conduct that violates public accountability norms or diminishes public faith in the justice system. The circumstances of Parfan’s case are similar to those in RE: (1) Lost Checks Issued to the Late Melliza, former Clerk II, MCTC, Zaragga, Iloilo; and (2) Dropping from the Rolls of Ms. Andres, where an employee was found guilty of grave misconduct for misappropriating funds, even without direct evidence, based on circumstantial evidence and the employee’s suspicious behavior.

Moreover, in Office of the Court Administrator v. Carbon III, demanding and receiving money from a litigant constituted grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal. Similarly, Parfan’s actions involved a breach of trust and a violation of her duties as a court employee. The OCA argued that Parfan’s actions constituted simple misconduct, recommending a fine of P5,000. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, finding her guilty of gross misconduct due to the elements of corruption and willful disregard of established rules.

The Court considered the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS), which classifies grave misconduct as a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense. Additionally, A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC, which amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, provides for sanctions including dismissal, forfeiture of benefits, and disqualification from public office for serious charges, including gross misconduct. In Dela Rama, the Court clarified that Rule 140 would apply unless its retroactive application would be unfavorable to the employee, in which case the rules prevailing at the time of the offense would apply.

However, the Court’s Resolution in A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC introduced an amendment to Rule 140, stating that its provisions apply to all pending and future administrative cases, regardless of when the misconduct occurred. Therefore, Rule 140 now applies retroactively, regardless of prejudice to the employee. Consequently, Parfan’s actions constitute gross misconduct under Rule 140, as amended, warranting a severe penalty. The latest amendment in A.M. No. 21-03-17-SC increased the imposable fine for serious charges, with gross misconduct punishable by a fine of more than P100,000.00 but not exceeding P200,000.00.

The Court noted Parfan’s failure to provide an explanation for her actions, her unexplained absences, and her refusal to comply with directives, all of which contributed to the finding of guilt. Since Parfan was already separated from service, the Court imposed a fine of P105,000.00, with forfeiture of retirement benefits (excluding accrued leave credits) and disqualification from reemployment in government service. This decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that the law is applied consistently and fairly, regardless of rank or social status, to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a court stenographer’s misappropriation of settlement funds constituted simple or gross misconduct, and what penalties should apply under relevant administrative rules. The court determined that it was gross misconduct.
What is the definition of misconduct in this context?	Misconduct involves a violation of established rules, particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer, directly related to their official duties. It is a transgression that affects the performance of their duties.
What constitutes gross misconduct?	Gross misconduct requires elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules, supported by substantial evidence. It is a more serious form of misconduct.
What is the significance of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court?	Rule 140 governs the discipline of judges and other personnel of the Judiciary. As amended, it provides classifications for administrative charges and specifies sanctions, including dismissal, suspension, or fines, for various offenses.
How did the Court determine the applicable penalty in this case?	The Court applied Rule 140 of the Rules of Court retroactively, as mandated by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, and considered A.M. No. 21-03-17-SC, which increased the imposable fines. This led to the imposition of a fine of P105,000.00.
What were the key factors that led to the finding of guilt?	The key factors included the uncontested affidavits of the complainants, Parfan’s failure to remit the payments, her caustic reaction when confronted, and her unexplained absences and refusal to provide an explanation. These factors established her guilt.
What is the effect of separation from service on the penalties?	Since Parfan was already separated from service, the Court could not impose dismissal or suspension. Instead, a fine and forfeiture of retirement benefits (excluding accrued leave credits) were imposed.
What is the main takeaway from this decision?	The main takeaway is that court employees must maintain the highest ethical standards and that any breach of trust, such as misappropriation of funds, will be met with severe penalties to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. The retroactive application of Rule 140 reinforces this principle.

This case serves as a potent reminder of the stringent ethical standards required of all personnel within the judicial system. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores its commitment to upholding public trust and ensuring accountability within its ranks. By retroactively applying Rule 140 and imposing substantial penalties, the Court sends a clear message that misconduct will not be tolerated, and those who betray the trust placed upon them will face appropriate consequences.

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: ROWELL E. ABELLA AND RUBEN DE OCAMPO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. TEODORA P. PARFAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, LUCENA CITY, RESPONDENT., 68349, April 05, 2022