Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

A.M. NO. P-05-1969             June 12, 2008

AURORA B. GO, complainant,
vs.
TERESITA C. REMOTIGUE, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities-OCC, Cebu City, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

AZCUNA, J.:

This is an administrative complaint filed by complainant Aurora B. Go against respondent Teresita C. Remotigue, Clerk of Court in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Cebu City for Conduct Unbecoming a Court Employee.

In her complaint dated September 13, 2004, complainant alleged that on February 26, 2003, complainant and respondent entered into an agreement to engage in the lending business with the court personnel of Cebu City as their prospective clients. This agreement was formalized by virtue of a Trust Agreement dated June 10, 2003¹ wherein complainant agreed to contribute P150,000 as capital to be used for lending money with a stipulation that the 10% monthly interest earned on the loans would be divided equally between them. However, respondent ceased to remit complainant's 50% share from the interest collected from clients. Thus, in July 2003, complainant signified her intention to terminate their business partnership and requested respondent to return the amount of the capital with the interest thereon. Respondent failed to comply despite verbal and written demands, the last of which was a handwritten letter dated May 12, 2004² which demanded the return of her contribution with the corresponding interest within two weeks from notice thereof. According to complainant, in one of her conversations with respondent, the latter arrogantly told her in the Cebuano dialect, "Sige kiha nalang sa husgado. Og kita nalang ta sa husgado kon maka-sukot ka ba, labin nga dili ako mobayad sa imo." ("Go ahead, file a case in court. Let us see if you can get anything from me, the more I will not pay you.") Complainant got worried that respondent might not settle her just claim as the latter even bragged about her influence and connection with the courts in Cebu City.

In her Comment dated December 10, 2004, respondent admitted that she and complainant had entered into a lending agreement in the lending business of her cousin, Conchita Pepito of Leyte, but denied that the same was particularly for the court personnel of Cebu City. Respondent pointed out that complainant proposed to her the lending business which would have the court employees of Cebu as clients, but knowing that it would be improper, she declined and instead, proposed that they join the lending business owned by her cousin, Conchita Pepito. Respondent countered that she continued to remit the share of complainant until March 2004 and that she only ceased to remit the interests when complainant informed her about her desire to terminate their lending business. She appended in her Comment the 21 deposit/payment slips³ of Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI)⁴ under her name and BPI Savings Account Number 2941-0008-89 evidencing her payment of complainant's share of the monthly interests and the P90,000 as partial refund of the principal amount of P150,000 while the outstanding amount cannot be returned yet as they were tied to long term loans. Contrary to complainant's claim, respondent said that complainant signified her intention to terminate their business relationship through verbal demands in February 2004, not in July 2003, as complainant needed funds to support her campaign as municipal mayor of Calubian, Leyte in the 2004 elections. Respondent claimed that she did not make an assurance that the capital contribution by the complainant would be returned immediately upon termination of their undertaking and as a consequence, she ceased granting loans to clients. She asserted that the lending business was a private undertaking and not confined to court employees in Cebu City and that she never used her position in the court to facilitate the lending business.

In its Report dated January 24, 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the case be redocketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be suspended from office for a period of one (1) month without pay for violation of Administrative Circular No. 5. The OCA found that per the Trust Agreement and her own admission, respondent was engaged in the business of lending, with the complainant providing the capital, and, thus, violated Administrative Circular No. 5 (Re: Prohibition for All Officials and Employees of the Judiciary to Work as Insurance Agents), dated October 4, 1988, which prohibits all officials and employees of the judiciary from engaging directly in any private business, vocation or profession. The OCA made no distinction whether respondent's business caters to court personnel in particular or that she utilizes her time outside of office hours to pursue her business. It emphasized that the public trust character of the office proscribes her from engaging in any private activity.

The recommendation of the OCA is well-taken. The Trust Agreement, signed by both parties and their instrumental witnesses and duly notarized by a notary public, serves as the repository of the terms and conditions of what complainant and respondent have agreed to be valid and binding between them and, therefore, constitutes the law between them. Under Article 1159 of the Civil Code, obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. The Trust Agreement,⁵ executed by the parties on June 10, 2003, clearly shows that both complainant and respondent expressly bound themselves, to the exclusion of other persons, to be partners in the lending business with the following stipulations:

A perusal of the specific terms and conditions of the Trust Agreement shows, among others, that complainant, the "first party," entrusts to respondent, the "second party," the total amount of P150,000, staggered in three payments of P50,000 each (i.e., February 26, 2003, April 2, 2003, and June 9, 2003) to be used for their lending business; that respondent shall use the money entrusted to her for the purpose of their lending business; that the 10% monthly interest earned shall be shared equally between them; that respondent shall deposit complainant's share of the monthly interest with the BPI under Savings Account No. 2941-0008-89 on or before the 15^th of every month; that the amount to be loaned by the borrower shall be withdrawn by respondent from BPI under Savings Account No. 2945-0065-71; and that respondent shall deposit with BPI under Savings Account No. 2945-0065-71, which is the account name of complainant, any amount collected from the loans. Nowhere is the number of respondent's cousin, Conchita Pepito, mentioned as a party to the said agreement or even joined as a second party together with respondent. This glaring fact belies the defense of respondent that the lending business was a partnership between complainant and her cousin, Conchita Pepito. Thus, in no uncertain terms can it be concluded that the lending business was purely the endeavor of both complainant and respondent. In this regard, the Court finds respondent guilty of violation of Administrative Circular No. 5 for engaging directly in the lending business with complainant.

Administrative Circular No. 5 states that:

The avowed objective of Administrative Circular No. 5 is to ensure that the entire time of the officials and employees of the Judiciary be devoted to their official work to ensure the efficient and speedy administration of justice. Unlike that of the rest of the government workforce, the nature of work of the officials and employees of the courts requires them to serve with maximum efficiency and the highest degree of devotion to duty in order to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary.⁶ This is true even if the private business, vocation or profession would be undertaken outside the office hours.⁷

The Court, in a host of cases, has invariably imposed commensurate sanctions upon court employees for violation of Administrative Circular No. 5 depending on the gravity of the offense committed and, likewise, taking into consideration the personal records of the respondent employees as to prior administrative cases instituted against them. The Court reprimanded a stenographer for appearing as a representative of one of the complainants in a labor case before the National Labor Relations Commission;⁸ imposed a fine of P1,000.00 upon a court aide who operated a sari-sari store in the court premises;⁹ imposed a fine of P5,000 upon a process server of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Balanga City, Bataan who facilitated the bail bond of an accused who had a pending case in one of the courts in the said city;¹⁰ suspended a sheriff for one (1) month without pay as he "moonlighted" as the administrator/trustee of a market after office hours to augment his meager salary;¹¹ suspended for six (6) months without pay a court stenographer who engaged in a pyramiding business and solicited investments during office hours;¹² and dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all the benefits due a clerk for working as part-time sales agent of an appliance center and for other offenses, specifically, falsification of her daily time records and infliction of physical injuries upon therein complainant in a public place under scandalous circumstances.

Considering that the act of engaging in the lending business is the first offense of the respondent, who has rendered more that 26 years of government service, the penalty of suspension from office for a period of one (1) month without pay is appropriate in this case.

WHEREFORE, respondent TERESITA C. REMOTIGUE, Clerk of Court in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Cebu City, is hereby found GUILTY of violation of Administrative Circular No. 5, dated October 4, 1988, and SUSPENDED from office without pay for a period of one (1) month, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Let this Decision be noted in the personal record of herein respondent.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., Chairperson, Carpio, Corona, Leonardo-de Castro, JJ., concur.

Footnotes