A.M. No. P-05-1969, June 12, 2008
Aurora B. Go vs. Teresita C. Remotigue, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities-OCC, Cebu City

FACTS

Complainant Aurora B. Go filed an administrative complaint against respondent Teresita C. Remotigue, a Clerk of Court, for Conduct Unbecoming a Court Employee. The complaint stemmed from a business partnership formalized in a Trust Agreement dated June 10, 2003, where Go contributed P150,000 as capital for a lending business managed by Remotigue. The agreement stipulated a 10% monthly interest on loans, to be shared equally. Go alleged that Remotigue ceased remitting her share and, upon termination of the partnership in July 2003, failed to return the capital and interest despite demands. Go further claimed Remotigue arrogantly challenged her to file a case in court, bragging about her influence within the judiciary.
In her Comment, respondent Remotigue admitted the lending agreement but denied it specifically targeted court personnel, asserting she declined that proposal. She claimed the business was with her cousin in Leyte, presented payment slips showing remittances until March 2004, and stated she partially refunded P90,000. She contended the termination was due to Go’s need for campaign funds in February 2004 and that the remaining capital was tied to long-term loans.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Teresita C. Remotigue is administratively liable for engaging in a private lending business, violating rules governing court personnel.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The Trust Agreement, a notarized document binding on both parties, unequivocally established that respondent was engaged in a lending business. This act directly violates Administrative Circular No. 5 dated October 4, 1988, which prohibits all judiciary officials and employees from engaging directly in any private business, vocation, or profession.
The Court emphasized that the prohibition is absolute and makes no distinction based on the clientele (whether court personnel or the general public) or the use of personal time. The public trust character of a court employee’s office demands undivided loyalty and prohibits private business engagements that may undermine integrity and public confidence. The Court cited precedents imposing penalties for similar infractions, such as operating a sari-sari store on court premises or working as a part-time sales agent. Considering respondent’s more than 26 years of service and that this was her first offense, the penalty of a one-month suspension without pay was deemed appropriate. The Court issued a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.