Doctrine: Administrative Law; Dismissal from Service; Grave

Misconduct; To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must be

grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling.

Re: Anonymous Letter vs. Soluren, 737 SCRA 522, A.M. No. P-14-3217
October 8, 2014

FACTS:

In the Anonymous Letter, it was alleged that Judge Soluren had been
instructing the party-litigants to deposit with her court settlement
money for various cases. in her sala. It was elaborated that Tuzon
would merely acknowledge receipt of the settlement money for the
different cases through handwritten notes without issuing any official
receipts therefor; afterwhich, Judge Soluren would order the dismissal
of the corresponding cases. However, when the parties requested for
the release of the said money, Tuzon would fail to timely comply with
the same.

Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the Anonymous Letter

to Executive Judge Evelyn A. Turla (Executive Judge Turla) of the same
RTC, for her discreet investigation and report. In compliance, Executive
Judge Turla sent a letterdated March 15, 2013 to the OCA with Tuzon's
comment attached thereto, stating that she did not find any act of
irregularity or any unauthorized collection on the part of the RTC.

Tuzon admitted his receipt of various amounts as settlement money for

the different cases. He, however, explained that, on orders of Judge
Soluren, he merely accepted the said amounts from the parties who
were willing to settle the civil aspect of their respective cases and kept
them in the court's vault. He also admitted not having issued official
receipts for the amounts he received, not being an accountable officer
in possession of such receipts. Meanwhile, Judge Soluren was no longer
investigated due to her compulsory retirement on January 29, 2012.

ISSUE:

whether or not Tuzon should be held administratively liable for the

charge of Grave Misconduct.

HELD:

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of

action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the
public officer. To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must
be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The
misconduct must imply a wrongful intention and not a mere error of
judgment and must also have a direct relation to and be connected
with the performance of the public officer's official duties amounting
either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to
discharge the duties of the office. [16] In order to differentiate Grave
Misconduct from Simple Misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear
intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule,
must be manifest in the former

Yes, Tuzon evidently overstepped his authority and, thus, committed a

form of misconduct.

The Court, however, disagrees with the OCA's appreciation of the

misconduct's gravity. Considering the absence of any proof that Tuzon's
actions were tainted with corruption, or with a clear intent to violate
the law, or would constitute a flagrant disregard of an established rule
say for instance, by the actual misappropriation of any amount which
came to his possession Tuzon cannot be held liable for Grave
Misconduct but only for Simple Misconduct which is punishable by
suspension for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6)
months at the most[21] without pay. That being said, the Court deems
it proper to impose the maximum of the foregoing penalty.

As parting words, court employees like Tuzon would do well to

constantly keep in mind that those in the Judiciary serve as sentinels of
justice, and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects
its honor and dignity and the people's confidence in it. The Institution
demands the best possible individuals in the service and it had never
and will never tolerate nor condone any conduct which would violate
the norms of public accountability, and diminish, or even tend to
diminish, the faith of the people in the justice system. As such, the
Court will not hesitate to rid its ranks of undesirables who undermine
its efforts towards an effective and efficient administration of justice,
thus tainting its image in the eyes of the public.