LOURDES S. ESCALONA, vs CONSOLACION S.

LOURDES S. ESCALONA,          vs

CONSOLACION S. PADILLO,               

Court Stenographer III,

   A.M. No. P-10-2785

September 21, 2010

FACTS: Complainant Lourdes Escalona filed a complaint against Consolasion S. Padillo, Court Stenographer of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 260, Pranaque City alleging an act of Grave Misconduct.

Escalona in her complaint claimed that she was referred to Padillo to help her facilitate the filing of the case against LoresetteDalit. Padillo allegedly asked for a payment of Php 20,000 for payment for the prosecutor. Escalona asked if she can just givePhp 15,000, Padillo accepted the payment. Subsequently, Padillo informed Escalona that the prosecutor was not amenable to Php15, 000 and so Escalona gave the additional Php 5,000 to Padillo for the service of the warrant of arrest. She was also asked to submit a barangay clearance and to first take an oath before Prosecutor Antonio Arquiza, Jr. and later before Napoleon Ramolete.However, upon checking, there was no record of the case against Dalit, causing Escalona to confront Padillo for the return of her money.

Escalona withdrew her complaint against Padillo as the latter was able to return her money. Notwithstanding this, the Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock sent two notices to Padillo requiring her to comment on the complaint but to no avail. Subsequent show cause memos were sent to Padillo requiring her to explain why she should not be administratively dealt with her for the failure to submit the required comments.

The Court Administrator in his memorandum found Padillo guilty  of grave misconduct for soliciting money from Escalona in exchanged for facilitating the filing of case against Dalit. Further, it stated that, “Padillo’s act of soliciting money from Escalonais an offense which merited the grave penalty of dismissal from the service. However, considering that Padillo tendered her resignation on 18 February 2007, a month after the complaint was filed but did not and has not filed any claim relative to the benefits due her, the Court Administrator recommended that all benefits due her, except accrued leave credits, be forfeited and that she be disqualified from reemployment in any branch of the government or any of its instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations”.

Issue: Whether or not Escalona committed a grave misconduct?

Held: Yes, the act of soliciting is a violation of the Code of Conduct of Court Personnel as provided in Section 2, Canon 1, “that “(C)ourt personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any explicit or implicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions.” . The affidavit of desistance submitted by Escalona is of no moment as such withdrawal of the complainant does not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint. Further, the termination ofEscalona’s employee is well within Section 52 (A)(11) of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service which also provides that dismissal is the penalty for improper solicitation even if it is the first offense. Section 58(a) of the same Rule provides that the penalty of dismissal shall carry with it the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service.