SUPREME COURT OF THE Pf~tl IPP/NE$
]~~~l~JD
PUBLIC INFORMATiOr: OFFiCf
3Repuultc of toe Jbtltpptnes
i>upreme Qtourt
;flfilantln
THIRD DIVISION
RE: MS. NENNETTE G. ZALDIVAR, A.M. No. 2018-03-SC
TRAINING SPECIALIST II,
PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY
Present:
vs. MR. ELIZALDE S. CARMONA,
JUDICIAL STAFF EMPLOYEE II,
PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY. PERALTA, J., Chairperson,
LEONEN,
REYES~, A., JR.,
HERNANDO, and
INTING,JJ.
Promulgated:
RESOLUTION
INTING,J.:
This administrative matter is rooted on a Complaint 1 filed by
complainant Nennette G. Zaldivar, Training Specialist II, Philippine
Judicial Academy (PHILJA), against respondent Elizalde S. Carmona,
Judicial Staff Employee II, PHILJA for gross dishonesty, grave
misconduct, and conduct unbecoming of a public servant in connection
with their agreement and transactions involving Supreme Court Savings
and Loan Association (SCSLA) deposits.
Rollo, pp. 88-90.
/4
Resolution 2 A.M. No. 2018-03-SC
The Antecedents
Sometime in February 2016, respondent verbally agreed to sell his
SCSLA capital to complainant for IQ,000.00. 2 Thereafter, complainant
started to deposit the amount of PS,000.00 to respondent's SCSLA
account every month, from February 2016 to November 2017. 3
Thus, on February 9, 2017, respondent executed a Special Power of
Attorney 4 in complainant's favor which authorized her to: (a) claim his
checks from SCSLA; (b) present the checks to the drawee bank for
encashment on his behalf; and ( c) enter into transactions involving his
SCSLA account. On even date, respondent surrendered his SCSLA
passbook to complainant. 5
In November 20 l 7, complainant discovered, upon having the
SCSLA passbook updated, that the amount reflected thereon did not
correspond to the total sum she deposited to respondent's SCSLA account
which, at the time, had already accumulated to P 112,000.00. 6 As it turned
out, respondent had withdrawn P7,000.00 from the account in May 2016,
and applied for an equitable loan (advance loan for supposed dividend) in
March 2017 and an equity loan (loan based on the capital contribution
which is to be paid monthly over the counter) in May 2017. 7
This prompted complainant to file the present Complaint before the
Office of Administrative Services (OAS) wherein she prayed that
respondent be directed to pay the sum of P70,000.00 for breaching their
SCSLA deposits agreement. 8
The OAS conducted several clarificatory hearings, and in the
course of the administrative investigations, respondent admitted that he
committed the acts complained ofby complainant. 9 The parties then came
into an agreement for restitution of the amount withdrawn from the
SCSLA account. 1° Consequently, on October 3, 2018, complainant
executed an Acknowledgment Receipt 11 in the amount of J:!52,350.67
Id. at I.
Id.
Id. at 92.
Id. at I.
(,
Id. at 1-2.
Id. at 2.
Id. at J.
()
Id.
Ill
Id.
II
Id. at 7.
flt
Resolution 3 A.M. No. 2018-03-SC
representing respondent's payment for the period starting April 17, 2018
up to September 4, 2018.
The Report and Recommendation of the OAS
In the Memorandum 12 dated May 24, 2019 submitted by Atty.
Maria Carina M. Cunanan, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief
Administrative Officer, the OAS found respondent guilty of simple
dishonesty and recommended the penalty of suspension from office for a
period of two (2) months without pay. 13
The OAS observed that respondent, by his own admissions, had
appropriated the funds deposited by complainant in the SCSLA account
for his own benefit despite knowledge that the funds did not belong to
him. Due to his financial crisis, he withdrew the amount of ll7,000.00 and
availed himself of two (2) loans with the intention of returning the funds
before the transactions were discovered by complainant. 14
In addition, the OAS recommended that complainant, too, be
severely warned from engaging in dummy activities and directed to desist
from buying SCSLA capitals to gain undue advantage/benefits at the
expense of others, per SCSLA Board Resolution No. 03-75, 15 Series of
2003. 16
The Court's Ruling
The Court has carefully perused the records of the case and concurs
with the findings of the OAS, with modification as regards the penalty
imposed upon respondent.
Section 1 of the Rules on the Administrative Offense of
Dishonesty 17 defines dishonesty as "the concealment or distortion of truth,
which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive
or betray and an intent to violate the truth." To constitute the offense of
simple dishonesty, the dishonest act must not, among others, cause
12
Id. at 1-6.
13
Id. at 6.
14
Id. at 4.
15
Id. at 6.
16
Id. at 76-77; SCSLA Board Resolution No. 03-75 prohibits regular members from allowing
themselves to be used as dummie<; by other regular members and non-members for purposes of
making deposits with the Associ.::lion.
17
CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, April 4, 2006: published in the May 5, 2006 of MALAY A.
~
Resolution 4 A.M. No. 2018-03-SC
damage or prejudice to the government, 18 or have any direct relation to or
involve the duties and responsibilities of the offender. 19
In this case, respondent himself admitted that: (a) he secretly
withdrew the amount of 1!7,000.00 20 and obtained two (2) loans despite
not having any capital contributions in his SCSLA account? and (b) he
withheld information regarding these transactions from complainant out
of fear that the latter would get mad at him. 22
These acts clearly constitute simple dishonesty as they did not cause
damage or prejudice to the government, and they were: not related to or
involve the duties and responsibilities of respondent.
The penalty for simple dishonesty is suspension from office for a
period of one ( 1) month and one (I) day to six ( 6) months for the first
offense; six (6) months and one ( 1) day to one ( 1) year for the second
offense; and dismissal from the service for the third offonse. 23
The Court weighs, on the one hand, the dishonest acts complained
of, and on the other, the mitigating circumstances in respondent's favor,
i.e., his length of service for twenty-five (25) years, his admissions
and restitution of the amount of P52,350.67 to complainant, and this
case being his first administrative offense, and deems suspension from
office for one (1) month and one (I) day appropriate under the
circumstances.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Elizalde S. Carmona,
Judicial Staff Employee II, PHILJA, GUILTY of simple dishonesty and
imposes upon him the penalty of SUSPENSION FROI\1 OFFICE for a
period of one ( 1) month and one ( 1) day without pay, with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.
The Court likewise directs complainant Nennette G. Zaldivar to
DESIST from buying SCSLA capitals to gain undue advantage/benefits
at the expense of other members, per SCSLA Board Resolution No. 03-
18
Id. at Section 5(a).
19
Id. at Section 5(b ).
20
Rollo, p. 29.
21
lei. at 32-33.
22
Id. at 33-34.
2
' CSC Resolution No. 06-0538. Scc1icn 2(c)
M
Resolution 5 A.M. No. 2018-03-SC
75, Series of 2003, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
,,,,,,,,,,--
WE CONCUR:
'
Associate Justice
ANDRE
!!
Asso
U-
REYES, JR.
e Justice
\( )
jj_____,~ .
RAMON PAULL. HERNANDO
Associate Justice
