Republic of the
FIRST DIVISION
of Court
Personnel of
[Formerly A.M. No. 03-11-641-RTC]
Regional Trial Court,
Branch 32,
PANGANIBAN, C.J., Chairperson,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO,
SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
Promulgated:
x -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - x
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Before us is an administrative case against the following court personnel, namely: Loida Moralejo, Officer-in-Charge; Heidwig Marie O, Balicanta, Clerk III; Elma Dabbay, Court Stenographer III; Virginia Peralta, Court Stenographer; Paquito del Rosario, Court Aide; Andresito Robles, Process Server; and Guillermo dela Cruz, Court Stenographer III, all assigned in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, Manila presided over by Judge Juan C. Nabong, Jr. for violation in the observance of the use of the daily attendance logbook and the subsequent submission of their Daily Time Record (DTR) to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Employees Leave Division (ELD).
An audit of
the attendance of court personnel of RTC, Branch 32,
In the Memorandum dated
1.
Loida Moralejo
(Moralejo), Officer-in-Charge (OIC), NEVER logged-in
or out to document her attendance. Her
logbook entries since January 2001 up to date of audit on
2.
Heidwig Marie O. Balicanta (Balicanta), Clerk III,
NEVER logged-in or out to document her attendance. She never logged-in since her employment with
the court since August 2001 to the date of audit. Her signature/initial is not found in the
confiscated logbook. However, she
submitted DTRs showing complete attendance for CY
2002 with no late/undertime.
3.
Elma Dabbay (Dabbay), Court Stenographer, failed to log-in on January 2,
3 and 4 March 4, 25 and 26 and yet reported in her DTR to have been present
during those times.
4.
Virginia Peralta (Peralta), Court Stenographer, failed
to log-in on January 2, 3, 4 and 7 and yet reported in her submitted DTR to
have been present in those days.
5.
Paquito del Rosario (del
Rosario), Court Aide, failed to log-in on January 2, 3, 10, 18, 21, 24 and 25
and yet submitted DTR showing he was present in those times.
6.
Andresito Robles (Andresito), Process Server, failed to log-in on January 14,
February 1 and March 6 and yet reported in his DTR to having been present in
those days.
7.
Guillermo dela Cruz, failed to log-in on
8. Nenita Robles (Nenita), failed to log-in on March 5, 8, 13, 14, 15 and 22 but
declared in her DTR that she was on leave with pay. [1]
In the same Memorandum, DCA Lock
directed the above-mentioned court personnel to explain their failure to log-in
their attendance in the attendance logbook and their subsequent reporting to
OCA ELD of having been present during the days they failed to log-in. Further, DCA Lock requested Judge Nabong to submit his explanation on his failure to properly
supervise the implementation of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations on
attendance as implemented by Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 4 and for his
inability to detect that the DTR (CS Form 48) of some of his personnel which he
had signed and submitted to OCA ELD did not truthfully reflect the entries in
the attendance logbook.
On
Since Nenita
declared in her DTR that she was on leave with pay, her explanation is no longer
necessary.
On
In the Agenda Report dated
OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION: Verification with the Docket and Clearance
Division, Legal Office, OCA shows that all six (6) personnel, except for OIC Loida Moralejo, have no pending
administrative cases. Ms. Moralejo was charged for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service by Ms. Carmencita dela Cruz which case was docketed as OCA IPI No. 03-1787-P
and filed on
EVALUATION: This
Office is convinced that all of the seven (7) [sic] personnel of RTC, Branch 32 are culpable. Indeed, they admitted, in one way or another,
their wrongdoing when they averred, inter alia, in
their Explanation to Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock’s
Memorandum dated 2 September 2002 that:
Our omission or negligence to log in and out in those
particular dates are inexcusable but it was not done
intentionally. Our actions in filling up
our Daily Time Record were done in good faith because we were really present in
those questioned dates, the fact that our DTR’s were
initialed by our Officer-in-Charge and signed by the Presiding Judge.
x x x We respectfully pray that this Explanation be given
merit and consideration and plea for Your Honor’s Compassion and Generosity in
evaluating our inexcusable negligence in not complying with Memorandum Circular
No. 4, dated
x x x x
As an Acting Clerk of Court, Ms. Moralejo, is presumed to know her duties, functions, and
responsibilities. She could not
hide under the pretext of her wrong impression that as Officer-in-Charge, she
is exempt from registering her attendance in the logbook. Memorandum Circular No. 4 dated
Considering the prevailing circumstances of this case
vis-à-vis the submitted daily time record (DTR) not based on existing logbook/bundy clock entry, the same is without factual or legal
basis, hence, as submitted, the DTR could not be considered the official report
of attendance. Such a report, therefore,
is a falsity. The Audit Report of Deputy
Court Administrator Christopher Lock further notes that there is a great
disparity between the dates the seven personnel failed to log-in during the
months of January to March 2002 and the daily time record submitted to OCA,
Leave Division.
Section 23, Rule XIV of the “Rules implementing Book V of
Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws” promulgated by
the Civil Service [Laws” promulgated by the Civil Service] Commission on
December 27, 1991, provides the following:
Sec. 23. Administrative offenses
with its corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave, and
light, depending on the gravity of its nature and effects of said acts on the
government service.
The following are grave
offenses with its corresponding penalties:
(a)
Dishonesty (1st
Offense, Dismissal)
(b)
Falsification of official document (1st Offense Dismissal)
xxx
Under the above-cited law,
all the respondents whose daily time records are evidently unrepresentative of
the truth, should be punished with dismissal, although
it is their first offense.
However, as enunciated in OCA vs. Liza Maria Sirios, et al., A.M. No.
P-02-1659, 28 August 2003, we do not hastily inflict an extreme penalty upon an erring employee,
especially so in cases where there exist mitigating circumstances which could
alleviate his or her culpability. Here,
we note that all the six employees readily acknowledged their offenses, sought
pardon and vowed to rectify their conceived errors. They beg for the kind indulgence of the Court
considering that the perceived offenses were unintentional and, therefore, done
in good faith. They likewise invoked
their dedication to their duty.
Furthermore, a perusal of their service records shows that this is their
first administrative offense. Except for
Ms. Moralejo, who has a pending case for Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, all of them have no
record. But it bears stressing that good
faith, under the case at bar, is not a valid defense.
On the other hand, this is
also the first offense of Ms. Moralejo insofar as
violation of Strict Observance of Working Hours is concerned. But she, in like manner, also acknowledged her
offense, offered her most sincere apology and vowed to reform her ways. It is also noteworthy that she being a Clerk
of Court only in an acting capacity the same extenuating factors warrant the reduction
of her imposable penalty. Moreover, we
cannot escape the fact that if all of these personnel would be severely
penalized the official transactions of the court might be jeopardized and the
administration of justice delayed.
Hence, we must impose the penalty according to the corresponding degree
of culpability each one has committed.
Since Ms. Moralejo is a ranking official of all the seven personnel,
we are of the view that a stiffer penalty of a FINE equivalent to three (3)
months salary is proper. Ms. Balicanta, on the other hand, for equally failing to log-in
during the period of January to March 2002 should be FINED equivalent to one
(1) month salary. While Mr. Del Rosario
who failed to log-in on 2, 3, 10, 18, 21, 24 and 25 January should be FINED for
P2,000.00. As to Ms. Dabbay,
we find the penalty of a FINE amounting to P1,000.00 to be proper. Whereas, Ms. Peralta and
Mr. Robles should be reprimanded for their failure to observe compliance with
Memorandum Circular No. 4.
As regards Mr. Guillermo dela Cruz, we agree with Deputy Court Administrator
Christopher Lock's observation that the issue has become moot and academic
because of his death.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the
consideration of the Honorable Court are our recommendations that the case be
RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative case and that:
1. Ms. Loida
Moralejo be FINED equivalent to three (3) months
salary;
2. Ms. Heidwig
Marie Balicanta be FINED equivalent to her one (1)
month salary;
3. Mr. Paquito
del Rosario be FINED for P2,000.00;
4. Ms. Elma Dabbay
be FINED for P1,000.00;
5. Mr. Andresito
Robles and Ms. Virginia Peralta be ADMONISHED, with a WARNING against herein
respondents that a commission of the same or similar offense shall be dealt
with severely;
6. All respondents are WARNED
that the commission of a similar offense in the future will met heavier
penalties;
7. The issue against Mr.
Guillermo dela Cruz be considered MOOT and ACADEMIC;
and
8. Judge Juan C. Nabong, Jr. be REPRIMANDED for
failure to properly supervise proper implementation of the Civil Service Rules
and Regulation on attendance as implemented by Memorandum Circular No. 4.
In
his Explanation dated
He
explained that his letter-compliance was inadvertently delayed due to his
failing health. He avers that he was
hospitalized at the
Anent
the failure of his staff to use the attendance logbook for logging-in their
attendance, Judge Nabong acknowledges that while it
is true that some of his staff overlooked or failed to time in and out in the
office logbook the same was neither intentional nor habitual. He claims that if any
one of his staff will be late or absent (except on emergency reasons), he was
always informed in advance. Moreover, he directs his staff to file an
application for leave and/or reflect in their DTR whether they are late and/or
absent. He prayed that the explanation be given due
course and that the audit report be reconsidered with his commitment and that
of his staff of faithful compliance with the said Circular and all
Circulars/Directive(s) emanating from the OCA or the Supreme Court in the
future.
The explanation of Judge Nabong was referred to OCA for evaluation, report and
recommendation. Judge Nabong retired on
The OCA submitted its
evaluation/recommendation in a Memorandum dated
Evalulation/Recommendation
xxx
A resolution
or directive of the Supreme Court, or in its stead the
Office of the Court Administrator should not be construed as a mere
request. It should be complied with
promptly and completely. Judge Nabong should not have taken the directive of DCA Lock
lightly and should have promptly complied therewith. His admission of his “seeming obliviousness”
to comply with DCA Lock's Memorandum, is an indication
that he indeed did not give much attention to DCA Lock's directive. His illness was very recent and happened
almost two years later than the
Likewise, his
justification that his inadvertent delay in complying with DCA Lock's directive
was due to his full workload and his failure to get a copy of the directive
cannot be given weight. He could have
easily sought for an extension of time to file his compliance or immediately
asked for a copy of DCA Lock's Memorandum if he really had the intention to
abide hereto. However, it took more than
two (2) years and another resolution from the Court for Judge Nabong to comply with DCA Lock's directive.
If not
insubordination, Judge Nabong's “seeming
obliviousness” in complying with DCA Lock's directive constitutes disrespect
for the Court's lawful directive bordering on willful contumacy.
Based on the
foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that Judge Juan C. Nabong, Jr. be ordered to pay a FINE in the amount of One
Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos for his
failure to promptly comply with the directive of the Office of the Court
Administrator.[5]
In a letter dated
We approve and adopt the
findings of the OCA with modifications as to the recommended
penalties.
Under Section 23,[7] Rule XIV
of the Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292,
respondents whose DTR are evidently unrepresentative
of the truth, should be punished with dismissal, although it is their first
offense. However, in Office of
the Court Administrator v. Sirios,[8] we held
that we do not hastily inflict such an extreme penalty of dismissal upon an
erring employee, especially so in cases where there exist mitigating
circumstances which could alleviate his or her culpability. Although unintentional mistake and good faith
are not valid defenses, the fact that respondents
readily acknowledged their transgression, sought pardon and vowed to rectify
their errors, and the fact that this is their first
administrative offense, militate the reduction of the imposable
penalty of dismissal from the service to lighter penalties.
In Reyes-Domingo v. Morales,[9] the branch
clerk of court who was found guilty of dishonesty in not reflecting the correct
time in his DTR was merely imposed a penalty of fine of P5,000.00. In Office of
the Court Administrator v. Villaflor,[10] the clerk
of court who made untruthful entries in the log book was imposed a penalty of
fine in the amount of P5,000.00. In Office of
the Court Administrator v. Saa,[11] the clerk
of court of the MCTC of Camarines Norte made it
appear in his DTR that he was present in office, when all the while he was attending
hearings of his own case in P5,000.00. In Re:
Alleged Tampering of the Daily Time Records (DTR) of Sherry B. Cervantes, Court
Stenographer III, Branch 18, Regional
Trial Court, Manila,[12] the
stenographer was found guilty of dishonesty for tampering her DTR and fined the
amount of P5,000.00.
With the foregoing pronouncements, we
deem the same applicable to the present case which will serve to mitigate the
penalty imposable on respondents OIC Moralejo
and Stenographer Dabbay who should be fined the
amount of P5,000.00 each. Considering that Stenographer Peralta is
likewise guilty of not logging-in, she should also be fined in the amount of P5,000.00. Clerk III Balicanta who did not log-in for eight months should also
be fined the amount of P5,000.00.
For
equitable reasons, by reason of the nature of their positions, Court Aide del
Rosario and Process Server Robles should be fined the amount of P2,000.00 each.
Anent
respondent judge’s retirement on
As to the
administrative liability of Judge Nabong, he would
have been admonished for not being stricter with his subordinates in the
observance of the rules on the use of the logbook.
However, he cannot escape
liability in making light of our directive and that of the OCA. Records show that the directive of the OCA
was issued on
We find
respondent's explanation unacceptable.
While he may have been suffering from serious ailments, as evidenced by
the medical certificates he attached to his explanation, it does not serve as a
valid excuse for not giving due attention to the directives of the OCA and the
Court. We agree with the OCA that respondent
judge must be held administratively liable for his unjustified delay to explain
his failure to properly supervise proper implementation of the Civil Service
Rules and Regulations on attendance as implemented by MC No. 4.
As enunciated in Imbang v. Del Rosario,[14] the office of the judge
requires him to obey all the lawful orders of his superiors. It is gross misconduct, even outright
disrespect for the Court, for respondent judge to exhibit indifference to the
resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaint
thoroughly and substantially. After all, a resolution of the
Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied
with promptly and completely. Such
failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in
character, but also disrespect for the Court's lawful order and directive.
In Soria v. Villegas,[15]
it was held that a judge who deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to
comply with the resolution of this Court is guilty of gross misconduct and
insubordination.
Judges are
subject to human limitations.[16] It is not lost upon us that the respondent
suffered from serious ailments and was hospitalized therefor. However, while these circumstances will not
exculpate him from administrative liability, they may be considered as
mitigating circumstances.[17] As recommended by the OCA, he should be fined
the amount of P1,000.00.
WHEREFORE,
the following respondents are found guilty of Dishonesty and they are meted the following penalties:
1. Loida Moralejo is FINED in the amount of P5,000.00;
2. Elma
Dabbay is FINED in the amount of P5,000.00;
3. Virginia
Peralta is FINED in the amount of P5,000.00;
4. Heidwig Marie Balicanta is
FINED in
the amount of P5,000.00;
5. Paquito del Rosario is FINED in the amount of P2,000.00;
and
6. Andresito Robles is FINED in the amount of P2,000.00.
All the above respondents are STERNLY WARNED that the commission of the
same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
For
failing to promptly comply with the directives of the Office of the Court
Administrator
and of this Court, Judge Juan C. Nabong, Jr. is FINED in the amount of P1,000.00
to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
The cases against Nenita Robles and the deceased Guillermo dela Cruz are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chairperson
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
[1]
Rollo,
pp. 14-15.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Sec. 23. Administrative offenses with its
corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave, and light,
depending on the gravity of its nature and effects of said acts on the
government service.
The following are grave offenses with its
corresponding penalties:
(a)
Dishonesty (1st Offense, Dismissal)
(b)
Falsification of official document (1st Offense, Dismissal)
[8] 457 Phil. 42, 48 (2003).
[9] 396 Phil. 150, 165-166 (2000).
[10] A.M. No. P-05-1991,
[11] 457 Phil. 25 (2003).
[12]
A.M. No.
03-8-463-RTC,
[13] Aquino, Jr. v. Miranda, A.M. No. P-01-1453,
[14] A.M. No. 03-1515-MTJ,
[15] A.M. No. RTJ-03-1812,
[16] Misajon v. Feranil,
A.M. No. P-02-1565,
[17] Re: Judicial Audit Report Conducted in the Regional
Trial