RABE V FLORES
FACTS
An administrative complaint was filed by petitioner Narita Rave against respondent Delsa Flores, Interpreter III of the RTC of Panabo, Davao for “conduct unbecoming a government employee, acts prejudicial to the interest of the service and abuse of authority.” It was alleged that Flores took advantage of her position as a court employee by claiming a stall at the public market when she is not among those awarded the market’s stalls by the court in a civil case. Also, she is said to have destroyed petitioner’s stall and brought the materials to the police station of the municipality. The court in a resolution absolved her of the charge. However, she was made to explain the following: (a) why she had a certification that she started working as an interpreter on May 16, 1991, and another declaring that she was Assessment Clerk I under the office of the Municipal Assessor from February 1, 1990 to June 3, 1991; (b) why she did not report said business interest (market stall) in her sworn statement of assets, liabilities and net worth, disclosure of business interests and financial connections, and identification of relatives in the government service for the years 1991-1994; (c) why she has not divested herself of her interest in said business within 60 days from assumption of office, and; (d) why she has claimed that she reported for work in certain 21 working days when her contract of lease with the municipal government required her to personally conduct her business and be present at the stall. Upon referral to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the latter found respondent guilty for dishonesty and failure to report her business interest, and recommended a dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether respondent is guilty of the above charges, and should be dismissed from service.
HELD
YES. Indeed! She has failed to satisfactorily explain why she still collected her salary from the municipality when the glaring fact was she was already employed at the RTC. She knew that she was no longer entitled to the same, but she took it nonetheless. What according to her is an overriding need for money aggravated by the alleged delay in the processing of her salary from the court in no way justifies receipt of salary not due her. Also, that she is the sole breadwinner of the family is not an acceptable excuse for her misconduct. If she was really in merely in need of money, then she should have returned the salary to the municipal government as soon as she obtained her salary from the court. But she didn’t do this. Instead, she only refunded after receipt of the court’s resolution, on the pretext of forgetting about it. Forgetfulness is, again, never a rational or acceptable explanation. Pursuant to the Administrative Code of 1987 and other Civil Service Law as, the penalty for dishonesty is dismissal, even for the first offense. A public office is a public trust. Although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual than in the judiciary. Flores should also be held liable for failure to perform her legal obligation to disclose her business interests. Her market stall is undoubtedly a business interest. The OCA even found that she had been receiving rental payments from one Rodolfo Luay for the use of the stall. Her contention that her contract of lease of market stall was never implemented because it became the subject of a civil case also fails to convince. The case she was referring to was filed in 1995; earlier than this, she was already collecting rentals as early as 1991. Therefore, she should have declared said business interest for the years 1991- 1995. RA No. 6713 provides that it is the “obligation” of an employee to submit a sworn statement of his assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interest, because the public has a right to know. Violation of this also constitutes sufficient cause for removal or dismissal.
