View full case

ARTHUR M. GABON v. REBECCA P. MERKA

FACTS:

Respondent Rebecca P. Merka, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Liloan, Southern Leyte, was charged with Grave Misconduct based on two instances: (1) writing eight demand letters in 1993 in behalf of certain individuals using the MTC's official letterhead and signing the letters in her official capacity as Clerk of Court; and (2) administering oaths in affidavits and a document in 1995 and 2000 that had no relation to her official duties. Respondent admitted using the court's official letterhead for the demand letters but claimed good faith in aiding to declog court dockets. She also asserted that she was authorized to administer oaths and that the complaint was a harassment suit, as the acts complained of happened 15 to 17 years ago. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the respondent's suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day for the unauthorized use of the court's letterhead and official designation in the demand letters, and a fine of P500.00 for violating Presidential Decree (PD) No. 26. The OCA also found the respondent guilty of simple misconduct and recommended dismissal from service. The Court upheld the OCA's findings and dismissed respondent Rebecca P. Merka from service due to Grave Misconduct.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent committed grave misconduct for using the court's official letterhead and signing demand letters in her official capacity

  2. Whether or not the respondent committed grave misconduct for administering oaths in documents not involving official business

  3. Whether or not the respondent violated Presidential Decree No. 26 for taking advantage of the franking privilege extended to courts in sending demand letters.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the respondent committed grave misconduct for using the court's official letterhead and signing demand letters in her official capacity. The respondent took advantage of her office and position to advance the interests of private individuals, acting as their "counsel" and collecting agent. This action was deemed an abuse of authority and an unwarranted privilege at the expense of the court's reputation.

  2. Yes, the respondent committed grave misconduct for administering oaths in documents not involving official business. The respondent violated relevant sections of the law and the Manual for Clerks of Court, which state that clerks of court may only administer oaths or notarize documents when the matter is related to their official functions. The respondent administered oaths in several documents that had no relation to her official duties.

  3. Yes, the respondent violated Presidential Decree No. 26. The franking privilege granted by the decree only extended to judges and official communications and papers directly connected with the conduct of judicial proceedings. The respondent, not being a judge, should not have taken advantage of this privilege in sending the demand letters.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Court personnel must conduct themselves with integrity, honesty, and uprightness at all times to maintain the public's respect and trust in the judiciary.

  • Misconduct in office refers to any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of their office, willful in character. Grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, requires corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.

  • Corruption as an element of grave misconduct entails unlawfully or wrongfully using one's position to procure benefits for oneself or others, contrary to the rights of others.

  • Grave misconduct is a serious offense punishable with dismissal, even for a first offense, under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.