Theft of Court Property: Resignation Does Not Bar Administrative Liability

The Supreme Court has long held that those who work in the judiciary must be beyond reproach. In Baquerfo v. Sanchez (A.M. No. P-05-1974, April 6, 2005), the Court ruled that a court employee who stole and sold unserviceable court property was guilty of grave misconduct—even though he had resigned before the case was decided. The case clarifies that resignation does not erase administrative liability.

The Facts

Gerry C. Sanchez was a Legal Researcher II at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Lianga, Surigao del Sur. On April 10, 2003, he sold two unserviceable desk fans belonging to the Supreme Court and one unserviceable electric stove owned by the provincial government to a scrap iron buyer. He used three young children to deliver the items and later collected the proceeds himself.

A complaint for grave misconduct was filed against Sanchez on June 17, 2003. During the investigation, evidence showed that Sanchez had been advised by a court utility worker to seek permission from the acting clerk of court before disposing of the items, but he ignored the advice. He sold the property without any authority and kept the money.

The Issue

The central question was whether the Court could still impose administrative penalties on Sanchez even though he had resigned from service effective October 17, 2004, while the case was pending.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Sanchez guilty of grave misconduct. The Court emphasized that resignation does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint filed while the employee was still in service, nor does it render the case moot. Once jurisdiction attaches at the time of filing, it is not lost by the employee's subsequent resignation.

The Court explained that allowing resignation to defeat administrative liability would create a dangerous precedent: corrupt employees could simply resign to escape consequences. The Court retains authority to determine guilt and impose penalties, including forfeiture of benefits.

Why Unserviceable Property Still Matters

Sanchez argued that the items were merely junk. The Court rejected this defense. Court personnel are duty-bound to safeguard court property in whatever condition it may be found. The unauthorized sale of government property, even if deemed unserviceable, is as reprehensible as stealing usable items.

The Court noted that as a legal researcher, Sanchez should have known that the branch clerk of court is the custodian of court properties. His functions never involved custody or disposal of court property. His act was deliberate and intentional.

The Penalty

Under the Civil Service Law, grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits, excluding leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or agency. Since Sanchez had already resigned, dismissal was no longer feasible. Instead, the Court ordered forfeiture of his retirement and all benefits except earned leave credits, and disqualified him from re-employment in government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Practical Takeaways

• Resignation is not an escape hatch. Filing an administrative complaint while an employee is still in service preserves the Court's jurisdiction to impose penalties even after the employee resigns.
• Unserviceable property is still protected. Court personnel must safeguard all court property, regardless of condition. Selling "junk" without authority is still misconduct.
• Custody rules matter. Only the branch clerk of court has authority over court property. Employees who dispose of property without following proper procedures face severe consequences.
• Grave misconduct is a serious charge. It requires wrongful intent and a deliberate violation of rules, not mere error in judgment.
• Penalties survive resignation. Forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from government re-employment can still be imposed after an employee leaves the service.

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