A.M. No. P-22-053. January 17, 2023.
Judge Jaime B. Santiago, Complainant, vs. Romelito G. Fernando, Utility Worker I, Branch 18, Regional Trial Court, Tagaytay City, Cavite, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from two complaints filed by Acting Presiding Judge Jaime B. Santiago against Romelito G. Fernando, a Utility Worker I (later appointed Clerk III) of Branch 18, RTC, Tagaytay City. The first Complaint charged respondent with Insubordination, Irregularity in the Performance of Duty, and Gross Neglect of Duty for failing to abide by the judge’s directives. Specifically, respondent did not immediately refer the Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence in two land registration cases (LRC No. TG-14-035 and LRC No. TG-14-060) to the judge, causing delay. The pleadings were only given to the judge on August 11, 2015. In his Comment, respondent claimed the lapses were unintentional due to his numerous tasks and faulted co-employees for the delays.
A Supplemental Complaint charged respondent with Continued Irregularities, Gross Incompetence, and Gross Misconduct. The allegations included: 1) That on May 22, 2015, respondent asked for and received P40,000.00 from Mrs. Lolita Borja to facilitate the bail of her son, but her son remained in jail. A handwritten receipt was presented. 2) That during a semestral inventory, 51 criminal case folders and one other case were discovered in respondent’s possession. 3) That three other criminal case folders were later found in his custody. 4) That the records of LRC No. TG-14-078 and LRC No. TG-13-1891 were found missing and later discovered inside respondent’s steel drawer.
The OCA directed respondent to file a Comment on the Supplemental Complaint. Respondent requested an extension but ultimately went on Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) without filing the required Comment. His name was subsequently stricken from the rolls on November 29, 2017.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Romelito G. Fernando can be held administratively liable for Gross Insubordination and Grave Misconduct.

RULING

Yes, the Court found respondent GUILTY of Gross Insubordination and Grave Misconduct. The Court adopted the OCA’s findings but with modifications, holding respondent liable for an additional count of Gross Insubordination for his failure to file his Comment despite notice.
1. On Gross Insubordination: The Court found two separate acts constituting Gross Insubordination. First, his repeated disobedience to the judge’s lawful directives regarding the timely transmission of case records and pleadings, which caused undue delay in the administration of justice. Second, his failure to file his Comment on the Supplemental Complaint despite repeated directives from the OCA, which constituted a blatant disregard of the Court’s lawful orders.
2. On Grave Misconduct: The charge was substantiated by the handwritten receipt for P40,000.00 received from a litigant, Mrs. Borja, under the pretext of facilitating bail. Respondent’s failure to file a Comment to refute this charge was treated as an admission by silence. Soliciting or receiving money from litigants is a grave offense that undermines the integrity of the judiciary.
PENALTY: The charges of Gross Insubordination and Grave Misconduct are serious offenses punishable by dismissal. However, since respondent had already been dropped from the rolls, the Court imposed the following penalties in lieu of dismissal:
FORFEITURE of all benefits, except accrued leave credits.
PERPETUAL DISQUALIFICATION from re-employment in any government instrumentality, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
* A FINE in the amount of P300,000.00, pursuant to Section 17(1)(c) in relation to Section 18(b) of the Revised Rule 140 of the Rules of Court (A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC), which is applicable. The Court emphasized that a public office is a public trust and respondent’s actions betrayed that trust.