Court Employee Held Liable for Misappropriating Settlement Funds

A court stenographer who collected settlement payments from one party but failed to remit them to the other has been found guilty of gross misconduct by the Supreme Court. The case of Abella v. Parfan (A.M. No. P-21-030, April 5, 2022) underscores the strict standard of honesty required of judiciary personnel and clarifies which rules govern administrative cases against court employees.

The Facts

Rowell Abella was charged with frustrated homicide before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, in Lucena City. Ruben De Ocampo was the father of the victim. At the urging of the presiding judge, the parties agreed to settle the criminal case. Abella would pay De Ocampo P72,000.00 in installments of P5,000.00 every two months.

Court Stenographer III Teodora P. Parfan, known as "Tita Dory," facilitated the settlement discussions. Between September 2013 and March 2015, Abella consistently remitted his payments — totaling P40,000.00 — to Parfan, who assured him she would deliver the money to De Ocampo. But when Abella and De Ocampo compared notes, they discovered that De Ocampo had received only about P14,000.00.

When confronted, Parfan suggested they simply "compute" how much she had given and received. She then stopped reporting for work without approved leave and was eventually dropped from the rolls. She also repeatedly refused to file her comment in the administrative case despite several directives from the Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether Parfan was guilty of simple misconduct or the more serious offense of gross misconduct, and which set of rules should determine the penalty.

The Ruling

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended holding Parfan liable only for simple misconduct, citing the absence of proof of corruption. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that Parfan was guilty of gross misconduct.

The Court explained that misconduct must have a direct relation to the performance of official duties. For misconduct to be considered grave, it must involve corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a blatant disregard of established rules. Here, Parfan unlawfully used her official position as a court employee to obtain a benefit for herself — misappropriating the settlement payments. This satisfied the elements of corruption and flagrant disregard of rules.

The Court also noted that Parfan's unexplained absences and refusal to participate in the proceedings were "indubitable and unequivocal indicia of guilt."

Which Rules Apply?

The case also clarified an important point on the applicable rules. Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS), grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal. Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, similarly classifies gross misconduct as a serious charge.

The Court explained that Rule 140 now applies retroactively to all pending and future administrative cases involving judiciary personnel, regardless of when the act was committed. This effectively superseded the earlier ruling in Dela Rama v. De Leon, which had allowed the application of the rule more favorable to the employee.

Since Parfan had already been dropped from the rolls, dismissal was no longer feasible. The Court instead imposed a fine of P105,000.00, with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and disqualified her from reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality.

Practical Takeaways

• Court employees act in a fiduciary capacity. Any money they receive on behalf of litigants must be promptly and fully remitted. Misappropriating such funds is gross misconduct, not a mere administrative lapse.

• Uncontested affidavits can be enough. When a respondent refuses to file a comment or appear in proceedings, the complainant's sworn statements may be taken as true.

• Rule 140 applies retroactively. Administrative cases against judiciary personnel are now governed by Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, even for acts committed before the amendment.

• Fines can be substantial. For serious charges like gross misconduct, fines now range from more than P100,000.00 to P200,000.00, in addition to forfeiture of benefits.

• Avoiding the case does not avoid liability. Dropping from the rolls or refusing to participate does not shield a court employee from administrative sanctions.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.