EN BANC

[A.M. No. MTJ-16-1870. June 6, 2017.]

[Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 16-2833-MTJ]

RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER COMPLAINT, complainant , vs.

JUDGE DIVINA T. SAMSON, Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Mabini-Pantukan, Compostela Valley, and UTILITY WORKER
and FRANCISCO M. ROQUE, JR., Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, Mabini-Pantukan, Compostela Valley, respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA, J : p

This is an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Divina T.

Samson of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Mabini-Pantukan,
Compostela Valley for misconduct and against respondent Francisco M.
Roque, Jr., a utility worker in the court of respondent Judge Samson, for
dishonesty and falsification.
The facts are as follows:
On July 11, 2013, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received
an anonymous letter-complaint 1 charging respondent Judge Divina T.
Samson with misconduct for hiring co-respondent Francisco M. Roque, Jr. as
Utility Worker I in her court despite knowing that respondent Roque was
convicted in Criminal Case No. 13388 2 for illegal possession of explosives,
as she was the public prosecutor who handled the case, and for knowingly
abetting the concealment of such fact, which led to Roque's appointment in
the Judiciary. The complaint also charged respondent Roque with dishonesty
and falsification for the untruthful entries he made in his Personal Data
Sheet, particularly that he had not been formally charged and convicted of
an offense.
Respondent Roque was convicted of the crime of illegal possession of
explosives 3 in Criminal Case No. 13388 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Tagum City, Branch 1, Davao del Norte in an Order issued on June 1, 2005.
Respondent Roque was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six
months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three years, six months and
twenty days of prision correccional, as maximum, including all the accessory
penalties provided by law. Respondent Roque immediately applied for
probation, which was granted by the RTC of Tagum City, Branch 1 in an
Order dated July 25, 2005. Upon the motion of Lily Anne B. Cabonce,
Probation and Parole Officer II of Davao City, respondent Roque was
discharged from his probation by Executive Judge Isaac G. Robillo, Jr. of the
RTC of Davao on July 18, 2008.
Respondent Roque applied for the position of Utility Worker I in the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 court of respondent Judge Samson. Despite having been convicted of the
crime of illegal possession of explosives, in his Personal Data Sheet dated
June 12, 2008, Roque answered "No" to these questions:
37.a. Have you ever been formally charged?
38. Have you ever been convicted of any crime or violation of any
law, decree, ordinance or regulation by any court or tribunal?
Respondent Judge Samson, who knew of respondent Roque's
conviction of the crime of illegal possession of explosives, as she was the
public prosecutor who handled his case, favorably recommended respondent
Roque for the position of Utility Worker I in her court even if she knew that
he was not yet discharged from probation at that time. Respondent Roque
was appointed to the position on October 17, 2008 and started working as
Utility Worker on the said date.
The complainant alleged that the position of Clerk II in the trial court
remains vacant despite the availability of several qualified applicants for the
reason that respondent Judge Samson is reserving it for someone else,
presumably respondent Roque. Moreover, an employee named Janet G. dela
Cruz allegedly continues to hold the position of Court Stenographer I despite
her incompetence and lack of knowledge about the job.
Further, the complainant alleged that respondent Judge Samson has
been tolerating the daily presence in her sala of her 62-year-old sister
Rachel Tabanyag-Verzola, who wears the court uniform although she is not a
court employee. Complainant said that Verzola is like a fixer/swindler and
she entertains litigants, including those who wish to be wed by respondent
Judge Samson.
In her Comment, 4 respondent Judge Samson admitted that she knew
that respondent Roque was convicted of the crime of illegal possession of
explosives. However, she countered that the hiring of respondent Roque as
Utility Worker I was not irregular, but proper, because he was already
discharged after having served his probation. She inquired from Edgar Perez
and Florida Ayaso, both from the Probation and Parole Office of Davao del
Norte, as to the propriety of respondent Roque's application and, likewise,
sought the recommendation of then Executive Judge Hilarion Clapiz, Jr. on
the matter. They all assured her that a final discharge of a probation restores
all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of the conviction.
Respondent Judge Samson dismissed as preposterous the insinuation
that she was reserving the position of Clerk II for respondent Roque, since he
is only a high school graduate and not qualified for the position requiring
civil service eligibility and two years of college education.
Respondent Judge Samson did not address the allegation that she had
been tolerating the presence in her sala of her older sister Rachel Verzola,
who allegedly wears the official uniform even if she is not a court employee.
However, she dismissed the charge that Verzola was a fixer/swindler as
malicious. She challenged the complainant to come up with evidence of
fixing or swindling and file the charge in court, and she will step down from
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 her position if the charge is proved. She suspected that the anonymous
complainant was Nelda Britanico, a court stenographer in her sala, who
allegedly has a penchant for filing anonymous complaints to conceal her
inefficiency and incompetency at work.
Respondent Judge Samson prayed that the complaint be dismissed for
lack of cause of action.
In his Affidavit 5 dated October 23, 2013, respondent Roque admitted
that he was convicted in Criminal Case No. 13388. He said that he was a
probationer from June 2005 to July 2008. He was discharged from probation
on July 18, 2008 by virtue of an Order issued on the same date by then
Executive Judge Isaac G. Robillo, Jr. of the RTC of Davao City.
Respondent Roque stated that during his probation, he attended
several seminars and open forum where he asked Probation Officer Lily Anne
Cabonce if probationers could be employed or travel abroad after having
been discharged by the court. Cabonce replied in the affirmative and assured
him that his discharge from probation would restore his civil rights and his
probation record would be considered confidential and would not be opened
to the public except upon court order.
Respondent Roque said that he learned about the vacant position of
Utility Worker I at the MCTC of Mabini-Pantukan, Compostela Valley, so he
applied for the said position in order to support himself and his son. When he
applied for the position, respondent Judge Samson told him that she would
refer his case first to the Provincial Probation Officer Edgar Perez.
Respondent Roque averred that his application was made in good faith and
based on the assurance of his probation officer and the favorable result of
the referral of his application by respondent Judge Samson to the Probation
Office. Further, respondent Roque said that when he applied for clearance
from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), his conviction and probation
were not indicated in his NBI clearance. CAIHTE

This administrative case raises these issues:

(1) Whether or not respondent Roque is liable for dishonesty and
falsification for failing to disclose in his Personal Data Sheet that he
was charged of a criminal offense and convicted of the crime
charged.
(2) Whether or not respondent Judge Samson is liable for violation of
the Code of Judicial Conduct for her complicity in the appointment of
respondent Roque to the judiciary despite knowing that he was not
yet discharged from probation when he applied for the position of
Utility Worker I in her court.
On February 15, 2016, the OCA submitted a Report 6 and
recommended that this complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative
matter. It found respondent Roque guilty of dishonesty and falsification of
his Personal Data Sheet and recommended his dismissal from the
government service, while it found respondent Judge Samson guilty of
misconduct and recommended that she be fined in the amount of
P20,000.00. Moreover, the OCA found that the other allegations against
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 respondent Judge Samson on appointing an underqualified employee, Janet
dela Cruz, and allowing her sister Rachel Versola to be a fixer in her court to
be unsubstantiated with substantial evidence.
The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA, but modifies the
recommended penalties to be imposed.
In regard to respondent Roque, Executive Judge Isaac G. Robillo, Jr. of
the RTC of Davao City issued an Order discharging him from probation on
July 18, 2008. However, the records show that respondent Roque applied for
the position of Utility Worker I in June and accomplished his Personal Data
Sheet on June 12, 2008 before he was discharged from probation. It is clear
that when respondent Roque applied for the position of Utility Worker I, he
was still a probationer.
However, the fact that respondent Roque was still a probationer when
he applied for the position of Utility Worker and accomplished his Personal
Data Sheet did not disqualify him from applying for the position. In Moreno
v. Commission on Elections , 7 the Court clarified that the grant of
probation suspends the imposition of the principal penalty of imprisonment
as well as the accessory penalties of suspension from public office and from
the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special
disqualification from the right of suffrage. It held:
I n Baclayon v. Mutia , the Court declared that an order placing
defendant on probation is not a sentence but is rather, in effect, a
suspension of the imposition of sentence. We held that the grant of
probation to petitioner suspended the imposition of the principal
penalty of imprisonment, as well as the accessory penalties of
suspension from public office and from the right to follow a profession
or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right
of suffrage. We thus deleted from the order granting probation the
paragraph which required that petitioner refrain from continuing with
her teaching profession.
Applying this doctrine to the instant case, the accessory
penalties of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a
profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification
from the right of suffrage, attendant to the penalty of arresto mayor
in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period
imposed upon Moreno were similarly suspended upon the grant of
probation.
It appears then that during the period of probation, the
probationer is not even disqualified from running for a public office
because the accessory penalty of suspension from public office is put
on hold for the duration of the probation.
Clearly, the period within which a person is under probation
cannot be equated with service of the sentence adjudged. Sec. 4 of
the Probation Law specifically provides that the grant of probation
suspends the execution of the sentence. During the period of
probation, the probationer does not serve the penalty imposed upon
him by the court but is merely required to comply with all the
conditions prescribed in the probation order. 8
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 From the foregoing jurisprudence, it is clear that when respondent
Roque was granted probation, not only was the imposition of the principal
penalty of imprisonment suspended, but the accessory penalty of
suspension from the right to follow a profession or calling was also
suspended. Hence, respondent Roque retained the right to seek employment
and was, therefore, not disqualified to apply for the position of utility worker
in the court when he was still a probationer. However, respondent Roque
had the obligation to disclose the fact that he had been formally charged and
convicted of an offense in his Personal Data Sheet and cannot justify his
non-disclosure of such fact by invoking the confidentiality of his records
under the Probation Law.
Under Section 17 9 of the Probation Law, the confidentiality of records
of a probationer refers to the investigation report and supervision history of
a probationer taken under the said law, which records shall not be disclosed
to anyone other than the Probation Administration or the court concerned.
However, the Probation Administration and the court concerned have the
discretion to allow disclosure of the confidential records to specific persons
and the government office/agency stated in the Probation Law. The
confidentiality of the said records is different from respondent Roque's
obligation to answer truthfully the questions in his Personal Data Sheet, as
the accomplishment of the Personal Data Sheet is a requirement under the
Civil Service Rules and Regulations in connection with employment in the
government. 10 The Personal Data Sheet is the repository of all information
about any government employee and official regarding his personal
background, qualification, and eligibility. 11 Respondent Roque, therefore,
had the obligation to reveal the fact that he had been formally charged and
convicted of a criminal offense to enable the Selection and Promotion Board
for Lower Courts to correctly determine his qualification for the position
applied for. The Office of the Court Administrator aptly stated that by
respondent Roque's false statement in his Personal Data Sheet making it
appear that he had a spotless record, he gained unwarranted advantage
over other qualified individuals, especially that he was also recommended
by respondent Judge Samson for the position.
The falsification in respondent Roque's Personal Data Sheet is a
dishonest act related to his employment. Dishonesty is the concealment or
distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud,
cheat, deceive or betray and an intention to violate the truth. 12
CSC Resolution No. 06-0538 provides the rules on classifying the
offense of Dishonesty and the proper penalty to be imposed based on the
factual circumstances of the case. The pertinent provisions of Resolution No.
060538 are as follows:
Section 2. Classification of Dishonesty. — The
classification of the offense of Dishonesty and their correspondent
penalties are as follows:
a. Serious Dishonesty punishable by dismissal from the
service.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 b. Less Serious Dishonesty punishable by suspension from six
(6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first
offense and dismissal from the service for the second
offense.
c. Simple Dishonesty punishable by suspension of one (1)
month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first
offense; six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year
suspension for the second offense; and dismissal from the
service for the third offense.
Section 3. Serious Dishonesty. — The presence of any
one of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of
the dishonest act would constitute the offense of Serious Dishonesty:
a. The dishonest act caused serious damage and grave
prejudice to the Government;
b. The respondent gravely abused his authority in order to
commit the dishonest act;
c. Where the respondent is an accountable officer, the
dishonest act directly involves property, accountable forms
or money for which he is directly accountable and the
respondent shows an intent to commit material gain, graft
and corruption;
d. The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of
the respondent;
e. The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification
of official documents in the commission of the
dishonest act related to his/her employment;
f. The dishonest act was committed several times or in
various occasions;
g. The dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination
irregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility such as, but not
limited to impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets;
h. Other analogous circumstances.
The falsification in respondent Roque's Personal Data Sheet is a
dishonest act related to his employment. Dishonesty is the concealment or
distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud,
cheat, deceive or betray and an intention to violate the truth.
As the Court has stated in the recent case of Alfornon v. Delos
Santos, 13 we do not automatically dismiss dishonest government
employees; rather, their penalty would depend on the gravity of their
dishonesty. Rule IV, Section 53 of the Civil Service Rules provides mitigating
circumstances, among others, that may be allowed to modify the penalty,
such as length of service in the government, good faith, and other analogous
circumstances. 14 Jurisprudence is replete with cases where we lowered the
penalty of dismissal to suspension taking into account the presence of
mitigating circumstances. 15 Office of the Court Administrator v.
Aguilar 16 enumerated cases 17 wherein the Court reduced the
administrative penalties imposed for equitable and humanitarian reasons.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 I n Alfornon v. Delos Santos , 18 the petitioner therein, when she
became a permanent employee as Administrative Aide IV in the Municipality
of Argao, Cebu, answered "No" to the question in her PDS about whether she
had ever been formally charged despite the fact that she was previously
charged with the crime of estafa in the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu before
she was employed in the government. The Court held that while the
falsification in Alfornon's PDS can be considered as a dishonest act related
to her employment, it found that suspension was the more proportionate
penalty for her dishonesty. The Court considered Alfornon's continued
service to the Municipality of Argao, Cebu since 2003, among others, in
holding that she only deserved to be suspended for six 6 months, as her
outright dismissal from the service would be too harsh.
I n In the Matter of: Anonymous Complaint for Dishonesty,
Grave Misconduct and Perjury Committed by Judge Jaime E.
Contreras (In His Capacity as then 4th Provincial Prosecutor of
Libmanan, Camarines Sur), 19 respondent judge, in his application for a
position in the Judiciary, failed to disclose in his Personal Data Sheet that a
previous administrative case was filed against him when he was the 4th
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Libmanan, Camarines Sur. The Court found
him guilty of dishonesty and penalized him with suspension from the service
for one year without pay, taking into account that he had been in the
government service for more than 30 years and it was his first offense as a
member of the bench.
I n Office of the Court Administrator v. Flores , 20 the respondent
therein, who was a Court Legal Researcher II in the RTC of Quezon City, was
charged with dishonesty for failure to disclose in her Personal Data Sheet her
suspension and dismissal from her previous employment. The Court imposed
the penalty of suspension for six months without pay, considering that
respondent had been in the government service for 14 years and it was her
first offense during her employment in the Judiciary.DETACa

I n Advincula v. Dicen , 21 the petitioner therein, who was the

Provincial Agriculturist in Samar, declared in his Personal Data Sheet that
there were no pending administrative and criminal cases against him and
that he had not been convicted of any administrative offense, although there
were pending criminal and administrative cases against him, and he had
already been convicted of the administrative offense of simple misconduct.
The Court affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals
affirming the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas that
petitioner was guilty of misconduct and penalized with suspension from
office for six months without pay.
I n Yalung v. Pascua , 22 respondent judge, in his application for
promotion, misrepresented in his PDS that he had never been charged with
violating any law, decree, ordinance or regulation despite the fact that two
administrative cases and one criminal case had been filed against him,
although these cases were later dismissed. The Court penalized him with
suspension for six months, taking into consideration that he had been in the
government service for 26 years and that he had no prior administrative
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 record as the cases against him were eventually dismissed.
In the instant case of respondent Roque, the penalty of suspension for
six months without pay is proper, considering that he was already
discharged from probation on July 18, 2008 when he was appointed to the
position of Utility Worker I on October 17, 2008, or he was appointed to the
position almost three months after his discharge from probation, and he has
been in the government service for almost nine years as a reformed member
of society. We take the benevolent stance to give him a chance to serve in
the government, as this is his first offense as an employee in the Judiciary.
As regards respondent Judge Samson, she contends that respondent
Roque applied for the position of Utility Worker in her court after his
discharge from probation, but the records show that respondent Roque
accomplished his Personal Data Sheet on June 12, 2008 or more than a
month before he was discharged from probation on July 18, 2008. When
respondent Roque applied for the position of Utility Worker I in her court,
respondent Judge Samson knew that he was not yet discharged from
probation and yet she recommended respondent Roque for the position in a
recommendation letter dated June 3, 2008, which forms part of the
employment record of respondent Roque in the Court. As the Presiding Judge
of the Court, respondent Judge Samson should have been circumspect and
waited for the final discharge of respondent Roque before she entertained
his application and gave him her favorable recommendation, as it is only
upon the final discharge of respondent Roque from probation that his case is
deemed terminated and all his civil rights lost or suspended are restored. 23
Her act violates Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, thus:
CANON 2 — A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND
APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES
Rule 2.01 — A judge should so behave at all times as to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 2.03 — A judge shall not allow family, social, or other
relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige
of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private
interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, gross misconduct constituting
violations of the Code of Conduct is a serious charge which may be
sanctioned by: (1) Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the
benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from
reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-
owned or controlled corporations; Provided, however, that the forfeiture of
benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; (2) suspension from
office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not
exceeding six (6) months; or (3) a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Divina T. Samson
guilty of gross misconduct and imposes on her a fine in the amount of
Twenty-five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00), while the Court finds respondent
Francisco M. Roque, Jr. guilty of Serious Dishonesty and imposes on him the
penalty of suspension for six (6) months without pay, with a stern warning
that the commission of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. HEITAD

SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin, Del
Castillo, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa and Tijam, JJ.,
concur.
Mendoza, * J., is on official leave.
Martires ** J., is on wellness leave.
Footnotes
* On official leave.

** On wellness leave.
1. Rollo , pp. 1-A-3.
2. Id. at 4; entitled "People v. Francisco Roque, Jr."
3. Presidential Decree No. 1866 (1983), Sec. 3.
4. Rollo , pp. 35-42.

5. Id. at 47-48.
6. Id. at 67-73.
7. 530 Phil. 279 (2006).
8. Id. at 288-289.

9. P.D. No. 968, Sec. 17. Confidentiality of Records. — The investigation report
and the supervision history of a probationer obtained under this
Decree shall be privileged and shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly to
anyone other than the Probation Administration or the court concerned,
except that the court, in its discretion, may permit the probationer or his
attorney to inspect the aforementioned documents or parts thereof whenever
the best interest of the probationer makes such disclosure desirable or
helpful: Provided, Further, That, any government office or agency engaged in
the correction or rehabilitation of offenders may, if necessary, obtain copies
of said documents for its official use from the proper court or the
Administration. (Emphasis supplied.)
10. Inting v. Tanodbayan , 186 Phil. 343, 348 (1980).
11. Advincula v. Dicen , 497 Phil. 979, 990 (2005).
12. CSC Resolution No. 060538, Sec. 2.

13. G.R. No. 203657, July 11, 2016.

14. Office of the Court Administrator v. Aguilar, 666 Phil. 11, 22-23 (2011).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 15. Alfornon v. Delos Santos , supra note 13, citing Office of the Court Administrator
v. Flores , 603 Phil. 84, 93 (2009), citing OCA v. Ibay , 441 Phil. 474 (2002);
OCA v. Sirios , 457 Phil. 42 (2003). See also Office of the Court Administrator
v. Aguilar, supra.
16. Supra note 13, at 23.
17. Id. at 23-26, citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Flores, 603 Phil. 84
(2009); Concerned Employees of the Municipal Trial Court of Meycauayan,
Bulacan v. Larizza Paguio-Bacani, Branch Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial
Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan, 611 Phil. 630 (2009); Concerned Employee v.
Roberto Valentin, Clerk II, Records Division, Office of the Court Administrator ,
498 Phil. 347 (2005); Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against
Elizabeth Ting, Court Secretary I, and Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Office of
the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division, 502 Phil. 264 (2005); Atty. Reyes-
Domingo v. Morales , 396 Phil. 150 (2000); Floria v. Sunga , 420 Phil. 637
(2001); Concerned Taxpayer v. Norberto Doblada, Jr. , 507 Phil. 222 (2005);
De Guzman, Jr. v. Mendoza, 493 Phil. 690 (2005).
18. Supra note 13.
19. A.M. No. RTJ-16-2452, March 9, 2016.
20. Supra note 14.
21. Supra note 11.

22. 411 Phil. 765 (2001).

23. Presidential Decree No. 968, Sec. 16. Termination of Probation. — After the
period of probation and upon consideration of the report and
recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the final
discharge of the probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and
conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is deemed terminated.
 The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil
rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his
liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was
granted. The probationer and the probation officer shall each be furnished
with a copy of such order.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com