CMM DIGEST

Rabe v. Flores
Date
G.R. No.
(The Law on Public Officers, Civil Service Laws, Election Laws)

Petitioner: Rabe
Respondent: Flores (Court interpreter III, RTC Davao)
Ponente: Per Curiam
FACTS:
Administrative complaint (Rabe v. Flores) for Conduct Unbecoming a
Government Employee, Acts Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service and Abuse
of Authority"
Flores took advantage of her position as a court employee by claiming a stall
at the extension of the Public Market when she knows that the stalls in the
said area had already been awarded to our client's members pursuant to the
decision of the court on October 30, 1991. Worse, she took the law into her
hands when she destroyed the stall of our client and brought the materials to
the police station.
Court required Flores to explain:
Why the Court interpreted that she began her duties as interpreter on May
16, 1991, when according to the Municipal treasurer of Davao, she was
employed as Assessment Clerk (Municipality of Panabo) until June 3, 1991,
with her last salary being paid on said date.
Why she did not divest herself of her interest in her business.
why she has indicated in her DTRs for August 1995 that she worked for all its
twenty one (21) working days when her Contract of Lease with the Municipal
Government of Panabo for the market stall in its Section 7 clearly states that
she has to personally conduct her business and be present at the stall
otherwise the same would be canceled.
Defense of Flores:
She assumed her office in RTC in May 16, 1991. Her justification for receiving
salary from the municipality for May 16-31, 1991, notwithstanding her
transfer to the judiciary, was that she wanted to refund the amount, but the
salary from the SC came 3-4 months after her assumption in office and she
had to enroll her children in school. She then forgot to refund the amount,
and made the refund as soon as she remembered after receiving a copy of
the resolution in this case.
She did not divulge any business interest in SALN for 1991-1994 because she
was never engaged in business during said period, although she had a stall in
the market.
She did hold office during the days in August, because her contract of lease
with the municipality was never implemented since it became subject of the
case.
HELD: DISMISSED FROM SERVICE! For dishonesty and failure to report business
interest.
RATIO:
She admitted to have collected salary from the municipality, even is she was
already working for RTC. She only returned it 5 years later. Her need for money

CMM DIGEST
Rabe v. Flores
Date
G.R. No.
(The Law on Public Officers, Civil Service Laws, Election Laws)

and the delay in the processing of her salary from SC, does not justify receipt of
salary that was not due her. If she was really driven by need, shouldve returned
the amount as soon as she obtained her salary from SC. Public office is public
trust.
Although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position
exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an
individual than in the judiciary. Personnel in the judiciary should conduct
themselves in such a manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion, and
free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only
in the discharge of their official duties but also in their everyday life.
Penalty for dishonesty even in first offense: dismissal (Admin Code).
She also failed to perform her legal obligation to disclose her business interest of
having a stall in the market.
The Office of the Court Administrator also found that she had been receiving
rental payments from one Rodolfo Luay for the use of the market stall. That
respondent had a stall in the market was undoubtedly a business interest
which should have been reported in her Sworn Statement of Assets and
Liabilities. Her failure to do so exposes her to administrative sanction.
The respondent's claim that her contract of lease of a market stall was never
implemented because it became the subject of a civil case, fails to convince
us. 4 years prior to the filing of the case (or as early as 1991), she had
already been collecting rentals.
In her explanation, respondent maintains the position that she has no
business interest, implicitly contending that there is nothing to divulge or
divest from. As discussed above, respondent had a business interest. We do
not find her administratively liable, however, for failure to divest herself of
the said interest. The requirement for public officers, in general, to divest
themselves of business interests upon assumption of a public office is
prompted by the need to avoid conflict of interests. In the absence of any
showing that a business interest will result in a conflict of interest, divestment
of the same is unnecessary. In the present case, it seems a bit farfetched to
imagine that there is a conflict of interest because an Interpreter III of the
Regional Trial Court has a stall in the market. A court, generally, is not
engaged in the regulation of a public market, nor does it concern itself with
the activities thereof. While respondent may not be compelled to divest
herself of her business interest, she had the legal obligation of divulging it.