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 markets stalls by the court in a civil case. Also, she is said to have
destroyed petitioners 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 didnt do this. Instead, she
only refunded after receipt of the courts 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.