CASE 2019-0027: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. TEODORO G. SIDRO, ET AL. (A.M. NO. P-17-3655. AUGUST 20, 2019, PER CURIAM) (SUBJECT/S: MISCONDUCT; CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE SERVICE) (BRIEF TITLE: OCA VS SIDRO)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

WHEREFORE, Teodoro G. Sidro, Sheriff III, Branch 84, Metropolitan Trial Court, Caloocan City is hereby found GUILTY of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service, and hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits except accruedleave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in the government or any of its agencies and instrumentalities including government-owned or controlled corporations.

 

Rolly S. Ocampo, Sheriff III, Branch 53, Metropolitan Trial Court, Caloocan City is hereby found GUILTY of simple misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service, and hereby SUSPENDED for ONE (1) YEAR.

 

Leonelle E. Mendoza, Clerk III, Branch 53, Metropolitan Trial Court, Caloocan City is hereby found GUILTY of simple negligence and hereby FINED in the amount equivalent to his ONE (1) MONTH SALARY.

 

Further, Rolly S. Ocampo and Leonelle E. Mendoza are STERNLY WARNED that commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

 

SO ORDERED.

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

RECEIPT OF SEVERAL AFFIDAVITS WAS ANTEDATED. INVESTIGATION SHOWS THAT COURT PERSONNEL WERE INVOLVED.

 

WHAT IS MISCONDUCT?

 

Misconduct is defined as any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right detennination of the cause. It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose22 that tends to threaten the very existence of the system of administration of justice, 23 and should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer.

 

WHEN IS AN ACT INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH THE OFFICE?

 

An act is intimately connected to the office of the offender if it is committed as the consequence of the performance of the office by him, or if it cannot exist without the office even if public office is not an element of the crime in the abstract.25

 

WHEN IS MISCONDUCT GRAVE?

 

The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence. Otherwise, the misconduct is simple.

 

WHEN IS CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE SERVICE?

 

On the other hand, conduct is prejudicial to the interest of the service if it violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes-or tends to diminish-the people’s faith in the Judiciary.

 

WHY DOES ANTEDATING OF COURT DOCUMENTS SMACKS OF MISCONDUCT?

 

The rules provide that the basis for timeliness of filing of pleadings is the date of actual receipt which must be reflected in the document. 28 Antedating a document filed before the court, therefore, is a deliberate act to commit dishonesty substantially affects the rule on the seasonable filing of pleadings and ultimately, the resolution of cases.

 

Antedating also constitutes the offense of making false entries in public documents, an act considered as conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.29 It undoubtedly tarnishes the image and integrity of the office to which the offender belongs.

 

WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

 

The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that a person is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.

 

WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES FOR MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE SERVICE?

 

Grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the service for the first offense and suspension of six ( 6) months and one ( 1) day to one ( 1) year for the first offense, respectively; whereas simple misconduct is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense.36

 

ADMONITION OF THE COURT:

 

Time and again, this Court has emphasized the heavy burden and responsibility of court personnel. They have been constantly reminded that any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of their official functions must be avoided. Thus, the Court does not hesitate to condemn and sanction such improper conduct, act or omission of those involved in the administration of justice that violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes or tends to diminish the faith of the public in the Judiciary.42

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2019-0027-Office of the Court Administrator Vs. Teodoro G. Sidro, et al.

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.