Ex-court worker happy on Corona’s conviction

THE former court interpreter who was sacked from service in May 1997 for not declaring her ownership of a market stall in Panabo City said she is very happy about the guilty verdict rendered by the Senate on Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

“Para akong very happy. Siya, the highest court, ako na maliit lang, patas lang kami pala,” Delsa Flores of Panabo City in a phone patch interview on ABS-CBN TV Patrol.

Flores was located by ABS-CBN Davao’s Francis Magbanua on Tuesday in the race to find the court worker whose case was the most mentioned by the senators who rendered a guilty verdict.

Asked what she can advice government officials and workers, especially those who work in court, Flores said: “Kailangan honest lang talaga kasi kung empleyado ka ng korte. Dapat malinins ka talaga, pero meron man pala hindi malinis, katulad ni Justice Corona.”

Pressed to give a message to Corona, she declined saying, “Kawawa na siya.”

Flores, in an en banc decision by the Supreme Court dated May 14, 1997, was dismissed from service with her retirement benefits and leave credits forfeited and was also blocked from being employed by any government agency and corporation.

But it was not just about the statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) that Flores violated.

She was dismissed for dishonesty, for still collecting from the Municipal Government when she was already employed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 4.

In its 1997 decision, the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, known as the Administrative Code of 1987 and other pertinent Civil Service Laws, was cited for which the penalty for dishonesty carries the penalty of dismissal even for the first offense.

This one was for double compensation when she was still receiving her salary from the municipal government when she was already employed by the RTC Branch 4 in Panabo.

But her ownership of a market stall, which she did not declare in her SALN, was also part of the decision where it reads: “In the present case, the failure of respondent to disclose her business interest which she herself admitted is inexcusable and is a clear violation of Republic Act No. 6713.”