The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Larry de Guzman, a Branch Clerk of Court, for dishonesty and grave misconduct. De Guzman was found to have engaged in unauthorized collection of cash bonds, falsification of official receipts, and issuance of release orders without authority. This ruling underscores the high standard of integrity demanded of court employees and reinforces the principle that those who betray the public trust will face severe consequences.

Falsified Faith: When a Court Clerk’s Actions Undermine Public Trust

This case revolves around the actions of Larry de Guzman, a Branch Clerk of Court, who was found to have committed a series of dishonest acts. These included the unauthorized collection of cash bonds, the issuance of falsified receipts, and the unlawful release of detainees. These actions prompted multiple investigations and reports, ultimately leading to his dismissal from service. The central legal question is whether De Guzman’s actions constitute grave misconduct and dishonesty, warranting the penalty of dismissal from public service. The Supreme Court, in its resolution, thoroughly examined the evidence and legal precedents to determine the appropriate course of action.

The initial investigation was triggered by a letter from Atty. Jose R. Ortiz, Jr., regarding falsified receipts and other suspicious documents originating from De Guzman’s branch. Atty. Ortiz’s investigation revealed a pattern of misconduct. De Guzman was found to have demanded and received cash bond deposits without proper authorization. He issued either fake receipts or unauthorized provisional receipts, and then proceeded to order jail officers to release the accused in several cases. The falsifications were apparent when the fake receipts were compared with the original receipts issued by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Judge Henri Jean-Paul Inting also brought to the attention of the Chief Justice other irregularities involving De Guzman, submitting complaints, fake receipts, and a copy of a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents and estafa.

The OCA recommended De Guzman’s suspension and requested him to comment on the allegations. It was also noted that De Guzman had been arrested in an entrapment operation by the National Bureau of Investigation for allegedly extorting money from a litigant. The Third Division of the Supreme Court issued a resolution placing De Guzman under preventive suspension pending the investigation. Despite being given multiple opportunities, De Guzman failed to comment on the allegations against him or present any evidence to defend himself. Due to his failure to report for duty beginning October 3, 2002, the Third Division of the Court resolved to drop De Guzman from the rolls and ordered the withholding of his salaries and benefits.

Executive Judge Natividad A. Giron-Dizon, who took over the investigation, concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly established the charges against De Guzman. She noted that De Guzman’s silence could be considered an implied admission of guilt. In her report and recommendation, she stated:

From the evidence adduced in this administrative matter, the Investigating Judge is persuaded that complainant has preponderantly established his charge against the herein respondent. The evidence is overwhelming that respondent issued fake and provisional receipts of cash bonds for the provisional liberty of several accused. Despite all opportunities accorded to respondent to appear and present his countervailing evidence, he failed to do so. Hence, respondent’s silence may be considered as an implied admission of guilt.

Executive Judge Natividad A. Giron-Dizon recommended De Guzman’s dismissal from service, forfeiture of all benefits, and disqualification from re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality. The OCA affirmed this recommendation, stating that De Guzman should be held liable for unauthorized collection of cash bonds and falsification of official receipts and should be dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and disqualification from re-employment in the government.

The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the OCA and the investigating judge. The Court emphasized that De Guzman’s refusal to comment and present his side, despite multiple opportunities, was contrary to the principle that an innocent person would immediately express their innocence when accused of wrongdoing. The Court found De Guzman guilty of all charges. The Court cited the case of Madrid v. Ramirez to highlight that fiduciary collections ought to be the responsibility of the clerk of court, not the branch clerk of court, to ensure proper accounting of all money received in trust.

Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 dated March 1, 1992 enumerates the guidelines to be followed in making deposits or withdrawals of all collections from bailbonds, rental deposits and other fiduciary collections. The said circular is addressed to executive judges and clerks of court. It goes without saying, that fiduciary collections ought to be the responsibility of the clerk of court, not the branch clerk of court. This is to ensure that all the money received in trust are duly accounted for.

The Court also emphasized that dishonesty will not be tolerated, as it denigrates the image of the courts and undermines public trust in the justice system. The Court reiterated its stance against any conduct that violates public accountability and diminishes the faith of the people in the justice system, citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Galo. Furthermore, the Court found that De Guzman had overstepped his authority by issuing release orders to jail officers, as this is a judicial function, not an administrative one. The Court emphasized that De Guzman had no power to order the commitment or release on bail of persons charged with penal offenses.

The Court held that De Guzman was guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty, offenses that warrant the most severe administrative penalty. Dishonesty and grave misconduct are grave offenses that carry the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification for re-employment in the government service, in accordance with Sections 52 and 58 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

FAQs

What was the main reason for Larry de Guzman’s dismissal?	Larry de Guzman was dismissed due to his dishonesty and grave misconduct, which included unauthorized collection of cash bonds and falsification of official receipts.
What is the significance of Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 in this case?	Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 specifies that fiduciary collections are the responsibility of the clerk of court, not the branch clerk, ensuring proper accounting of funds. De Guzman, as a branch clerk, violated this circular by collecting cash bonds without authorization.
What constitutes grave misconduct in this context?	Grave misconduct involves a serious transgression of established and definite rules of action, such as demanding and receiving cash bond deposits without authority. It undermines the integrity and proper functioning of the court.
What penalties are associated with dishonesty and grave misconduct for a court employee?	The penalties include dismissal from service, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.
Why was De Guzman’s silence considered an admission of guilt?	The Court noted that an innocent person would typically express their innocence when accused of wrongdoing. De Guzman’s failure to respond or defend himself was interpreted as an implied admission of guilt.
What does it mean to be dropped from the rolls?	Being dropped from the rolls means that an employee’s name is removed from the official list of employees, typically due to absence without official leave (AWOL) or other serious misconduct.
What was the role of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in this case?	The OCA conducted investigations, reviewed reports, and recommended the appropriate disciplinary actions to the Supreme Court based on the evidence and findings.
Can Larry de Guzman be re-employed in any government position in the future?	No, due to the severity of his offenses, Larry de Guzman is perpetually disqualified from being re-employed in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of integrity and accountability in public service. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the highest ethical standards and ensuring that those who betray the public trust are held accountable for their actions. Court employees must adhere to these standards to maintain the integrity of the justice system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ATTY. JOSE R. ORTIZ, JR. VS. LARRY DE GUZMAN, A.M. NO. P-03-1708, February 16, 2005