Gabon V Merka
Gabon V Merka
MERKA
Facts:
Complainant Arthur M. Gabon charged the respondent with Grave Misconduct (1) for writing eight
demand letters in 1993 in behalf of the Saint Ignatius Loyola Credit Cooperative, Inc., using the
MTC’s official letterhead and signing the same letters in her official capacity as the Clerk of Court of
the MTC of Liloan, Southern Leyte; and (2) for administering oaths in five affidavits and a Kasabutan
(Agreement) in 1995 and 2000 that had no relation with her official duties. The complainant argued
that the respondent acted like the counsel of a private party in writing the demand letters and that
the respondent’s authority to administer oaths extended only to cases filed or pending in her
assigned court
Respondent admitted the charge of using the MTC’s official letterhead and signing the demand
letters in her official capacity, but explained that she acted in good faith to aid in declogging court
dockets. She insisted that she was duly authorized to administer oaths under Section M, Chapter
VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court and that she did not abuse the franking privilege of the court in
sending the letters as these letters were in representation of the court. She averred that the
complaint was a harassment suit because she committed the acts complained of 15 or 17 years ago.
Ruling:
We have repeatedly stressed that all officials and employees involved in the administration of justice,
from judges to the lowest rank and file employees, bear the heavy responsibility of acting with strict
propriety and decorum at all times in order to merit and maintain the public's respect for, and trust in,
the Judiciary. Simply stated, all court personnel must conduct themselves in a manner exemplifying
integrity, honesty and uprightness.
The respondent also administered oaths in documents not involving official business. Clerks of Court
are notaries public ex officio; they may notarize documents or administer oaths only when the matter
is related to the exercise of their official functions. Thus, in their ex-officio capacity, clerks of court
should not take part in the execution of private documents bearing no relation at all to their official
functions. The respondent administered oaths in five affidavits and a document bearing no relation at
all to her official functions.
Misconduct in office refers to "any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his
office, willful in character. The term embraces acts which the office holder had no right to perform,
acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act." In grave
misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to
violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule must be manifest. Corruption as an element
of grave misconduct consists in the act of an official or employee who unlawfully or wrongfully uses
his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another, contrary to the rights of
others, as in this case. By her repeated abuse and misuse of authority, the respondent exhibited an
obvious lack of integrity expected of a court employee.
The respondent failed to meet the strict standards set for a court employee; hence, she does not
deserve to remain in the Judiciary. Guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed from service.