G.R. No. A.M. No. 03-3-179-RTC; January 26, 2005
RE: RESIGNATION OF MICHAEL A. LATIZA, UTILITY WORKER I, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 14, CEBU CITY

FACTS

In a criminal case before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 14, the court ordered the return of ₱118,040 in evidence to the accused. Upon retrieval, a shortage of ₱24,800 was discovered. Court Aide Michael A. Latiza, who used the court premises as his sleeping quarters, admitted to allowing outsiders to stay overnight and offered to pay the missing amount. He subsequently went absent without official leave (AWOL) starting February 10, 2003, and submitted a letter of resignation dated March 19, 2003. An investigation was ordered, but Latiza failed to appear despite notices and could no longer be located at his last known address.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Latiza guilty of dishonesty for the loss of the evidence. The OCA noted that his AWOL status and flight constituted abandonment and an indication of guilt. Since Latiza had already resigned, the OCA recommended imposing a fine of ₱40,000 and filing criminal charges against him. The case was consolidated with the administrative matter concerning his resignation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Michael A. Latiza is administratively liable for the loss of court evidence, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty considering his resignation from service.

RULING

Yes, Latiza is administratively liable. The Supreme Court En Banc found him guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. His admission of liability, his failure to appear during the investigation, his going AWOL, and his precipitate resignation are clear indicia of his guilt. The act of taking money that was part of court evidence constitutes a grave offense that undermines the integrity of the judiciary.
Resignation does not moot administrative proceedings or shield an employee from liability. While the penalty of dismissal is no longer feasible due to his resignation, the Court imposed a fine of ₱40,000. Additionally, his retirement and all other benefits, except accrued leave credits, are forfeited. He is perpetually disqualified from re-employment in any government branch, agency, or instrumentality. The Court also directed the OCA’s legal office to file appropriate criminal charges against him for the missing funds. This ruling emphasizes that court employees must uphold the highest standards of honesty and integrity to maintain public trust in the judiciary.