Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gabon V Merka

    Uploaded by

    Mariz Enoc
    165 views2 pages
    The respondent, Rebecca P. Merka, was charged with grave misconduct for using her position as Clerk of Court to write demand letters on behalf of a private organization and for administering oaths in documents unrelated to her official duties. While the respondent admitted to using official letterhead for private matters, she claimed her actions were in good faith and within her authority. However, the court found the respondent flagrantly abused and misused her authority. As a court employee, the respondent failed to meet the strict standards of integrity and propriety required of her position. Based on her repeated abuse of authority, the court ruled the respondent guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed her from service.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    gabon v merka

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The respondent, Rebecca P. Merka, was charged with grave misconduct for using her position as Clerk of Court to write demand letters on behalf of a private organization and for administering oaths in documents unrelated to her official duties. While the respondent admitted to using official letterhead for private matters, she claimed her actions were in good faith and within her authority. However, the court found the respondent flagrantly abused and misused her authority. As a court employee, the respondent failed to meet the strict standards of integrity and propriety required of her position. Based on her repeated abuse of authority, the court ruled the respondent guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed her from service.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    165 views2 pages

    Gabon V Merka

    Uploaded by

    Mariz Enoc
    The respondent, Rebecca P. Merka, was charged with grave misconduct for using her position as Clerk of Court to write demand letters on behalf of a private organization and for administering oaths in documents unrelated to her official duties. While the respondent admitted to using official letterhead for private matters, she claimed her actions were in good faith and within her authority. However, the court found the respondent flagrantly abused and misused her authority. As a court employee, the respondent failed to meet the strict standards of integrity and propriety required of her position. Based on her repeated abuse of authority, the court ruled the respondent guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed her from service.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ARTHUR M. GABON vs. REBECCA P.

    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.

    Issue: whether or not respondent is guilty of grave misconduct.

    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.

    We cannot tolerate the respondent’s flagrant abuse and misuse of authority.

    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.

    You might also like