Rabe V. Flores

Rabe v. Flores Facts: Narita Rabe filed a complaint for “conduct unbecoming of a government employee and for acts prejudicial to the interest of service and abuse of authority” against Delsa Flores, a court interpreter in the RTC of Davao. Rabe alleged that Flores took advantage of her position as a court employee by claiming a stall at the extension of the public market when she was not a member of the complainant’s client's association and was never a party to Civil Case No. 89-23. She herself knew that the stalls in the said area had already been awarded to the complainant’s client's members pursuant to the decision of the court on October 30, 1991 and that she took the law into her own hands when she destroyed the stall of the Rabe’s client and brought the materials to the police station of Panabo, Davao. After Flores’ answer was filed, the Court dismissed the case but ordered Flores to explain why she should not be administratively sanctioned for procuring a certification from the RTC Clerk of Court certifying that she started to work as court interpreter by May 16, 1991 when another certification issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Panabo, Davao that she was working as a clerk in the Municipal Assessor’s Office of Panabo until June 3, 1991 and that considering she owned the stall in the above-mentioned complaint, why did she not declare the same in her SAL and why did not divest herself of that interest within 60 days from her assumption of office. Flores responded by claiming that she actually intend to refund the double compensation she received but just forgot about it and use the money for her children’s tuition and that she actually assumed her office even before May 16, 1991 to familiarize herself in the office and that she is not engaged in business although she has a market stall. OCA recommended that Flores be dismissed from service. Issue: Whether Flores should be dismissed from service Held: Yes. Her overriding need for money from the municipal government, aggravated by the alleged delay in the processing of her initial salary from the Court, does not justify receipt of a salary not due her. We sympathize with respondent's sad plight of being the sole breadwinner of her family, with her husband and parents to feed and children to send to school. This, however, is not an acceptable excuse for her misconduct. If poverty and pressing financial need could justify stealing, the government would have been bankrupt long ago. A public servant should never expect to become wealthy in government. If respondent was just driven by dire pecuniary need, respondent should have returned the salary she had obtained from the Municipal Government of Panabo as soon as she obtained her salary from the court. However, she returned the money only after receipt of the Court's Resolution dated January 17, 1996, saying that she forgot all about it. Forgetfulness or failure to remember is never a rational or acceptable explanation. Respondent's malfeasance is a clear contravention of the constitutional dictum that the State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption. Under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO No. 292 known as the "Administrative Code of 1987" and other pertinent Civil Service Laws, the penalty for dishonesty is dismissal, even for the first offense. Accordingly, for respondent's dishonesty in receiving and keeping what she was not lawfully entitled to, this Court has the duty to impose on her the penalty prescribed by law: dismissal. Aside from dishonesty, however, respondent is also guilty of failure to perform her legal obligation to disclose her business interests. Respondent herself admitted that she "had a stall in the market." The Office of the Court Administrator also found that she had

been receiving rental payments from one Rodolfo Luay for the use of the market stall. That respondent had a stall in the market was undoubtedly a business interest which should have been reported in her Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Her failure to do so exposes her to administrative sanction. Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 provides that it is the "obligation" of an employee to submit a sworn statement, as the "public has a right to know" the employee's assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests. Section 11 of the same law prescribes the criminal and administrative penalty for violation of any provision thereof. Paragraph (b) of Section 11 provides that "(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him." It is well to stress once again the constitutional declaration that a "public office is a public trust”. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”