FELICIDAD
D. PALABRICA, A.M. No.
P-06-2205
Complainant,
(Formerly OCA-IPI No. 05-2250-P)
Present:
PANGANIBAN, C.J.,
PUNO,
- versus - QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
ATTY.
CECILIA T. FAELNAR,
Clerk of Court VI, RTC, Branch 11 CARPIO MORALES,
M. Fortich,
Bukidnon, CALLEJO, SR.,
Respondent.
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated:
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
Per Curiam:
An
Affidavit-Complaint[1]
dated 19 July 2005 was filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
by Felicidad D. Palabrica (complainant) accusing Atty. Cecilia T. Faelnar
(respondent) of “violating the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, dishonesty,
grave misconduct, falsification of official document, conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service and/or violating the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, violating the lawyer’s
oath, and acts contrary to legal and judicial ethics.” Complainant is the court stenographer of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, while
respondent holds the position of Clerk of Court VI, of the same office.
Complainant alleges the following:
1. On P8,000.00 trust fund to be
used by the Judicial Service Team (JST) of RTC, Branch 11 personnel for the 16-17
April 2004 conference at
2. No meeting or
seminar was conducted. The court
personnel merely enjoyed themselves by eating and swimming. When the OCA required then Acting Judge
Francisco Rojas the minutes of the JST meeting and the court performance
inventory for January to December 2004 and January to March 2005, Judge Rojas
merely submitted documents from June 2004 to June 2005. The purported JST meeting in
3. On P5,000.00 for
the purchase of curtains for the court. The
amount spent in Camiguin could have been used for the purchase of the curtain
if only respondent were honest in dispensing her duties as an accountable
officer of the court.
4. On
5. On
6. On
7. On
In its 1st Indorsement
dated
Vigorously denying
the allegations of complainant, respondent, in her Comment,[4] addresses
the issues in seriatim:
1. On the issue of
the JST meeting in Camiguin, respondent claims that based on the payroll,[5] the
amount of P8,000.00 was duly received by the RTC, Branch 11
personnel. They were used to cover
expenses for board and lodging, transportation and other miscellaneous expenses
for the RTC personnel. While there was
no formal agenda made, there was a consultation conducted on
2. Regarding the issue
on solicitation by respondent from the IBP President, the amount of P5,000.00
was a donation from the IBP for the cost of the curtains pursuant to a letter
request prepared by respondent in behalf of RTC, Branch 11.
3. Respondent used
her personal funds for the construction of the record shelves. The P3000.00 honorarium of Judge Rojas
did not cover the cost of the construction of these shelves. Consequently, respondent requested the
reimbursement of the expenses she incurred, which the LGU granted upon
presentation of the necessary papers and official receipts.
4. No note was
solicited for the meals at the Del Monte Clubhouse. Respondent offered meals to the auditors on
another date and at a different restaurant.
But her offer was not accepted by the auditors. The court personnel were provided free meals
by the Office of the Mayor after participating in the cleanliness drive
sometime in August 2004.
5. Respondent
requested P5,000.00 anticipating that the audit would last for two (2)
days. The intended JST conference on
6. The signing of
the name of Judge Rojas by respondent in the certificate of service was
authorized by the former and it was done in order to beat the deadline set by
OCAD in the submission of attendance reports.
In fact this had been the practice with respect to other orders, whereby
the text of the orders are read to be him over the cellular phone and the
orders were signed later by the judge.
7. The ulterior
motive of complainant in filing the case is to avenge respondent’s filing on
In her
Reply-Affidavit,[8]
complainant emphasizes that while she was the one who prepared the documents
relative to the JST meeting in Camiguin, she only did so upon respondent’s
instructions. Furthermore, the trip was
not legal for there was no advice from the Supreme Court to conduct such
meeting and to solicit funds from the LGU.
According to complainant, respondent’s mere act of solicitation from the
IBP is proscribed by the Supreme Court, especially when the President of the
IBP of Misamis Oriental has pending cases before RTC, Branch 11.
Complainant insists
that respondent committed falsification for causing the release of Judge Rojas’
honorarium on May 2004 knowing that Judge Rojas assumed the position only in
June 2004. Respondent likewise committed
forgery in the Certificate of Service. She
should have indicated that she was signing the certificate for and in behalf of
Judge Rojas, instead of simply affixing the judge’s signature.
In her Rejoinder,[9]
respondent stresses that she did not use her official position to secure
unwarranted benefits. She clarified that
not a single centavo out of the said financial assistance/donations went to her
pocket, as the same redounded to the benefit of the court, its personnel,
litigants, lawyers and the public in general.
In complainant’s
Sur-Rejoinder Affidavit,[10] she
reiterates her claim that the donation made by the IBP President is irregular
and respondent should have exercised extreme caution in asking donations to
avoid a negative impression from the public and to insulate the court from any criticism.
On
The OCA submitted
its Report[11]
finding respondent guilty of violations of OCA Circular No. 28-2003, Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel, and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees, and for dishonesty.
OCA held that respondent violated the provisions
of OCA Circular No. 28-2003. Instead of
holding an “enhancement program,” the RTC, Branch 11 personnel purely had
relaxation and recreation in Camiguin.
There were no minutes of the alleged staff development program submitted
to the Court Management Office (CMO), as required by the OCA circular. Thus, respondent’s act of soliciting the
amount of P8,000.00 from the LGU is tantamount to violation of Section
1, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. She used her official position to secure
unwarranted benefits for herself and her co-employees.
Respondent violated
Section 1, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel when she spent
public funds on
The OCA also found
respondent guilty of dishonesty for writing the names and affixing the
signatures the SC auditors in the attendance sheet dated
There was, however,
no violation committed when respondent asked for financial assistance for the
court’s curtain and for reimbursement of expenses in the construction of record
shelves.
With respect to the
charge of forgery, there was no evidence that respondent was not authorized to
sign the name of Judge Rojas in her certificate of service. Judge Rojas did not question the authenticity
of his signature appearing in said certificates.
OCA recommended
that respondent be suspended for six (6) months.
Time and again,
court personnel who are occupying responsible positions in the administration
of justice are reminded to adhere to the highest standard of morality and
decency to preserve the honor and dignity of the judiciary. The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel was
promulgated to enable the Court to exercise disciplinary authority over court
personnel.
Section 1, Canon 1
of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel expressly prohibits court personnel
from using their official position to secure unwarranted benefits, privileges
or exemption for themselves or for others.
The evidence on record, as found by OCA, shows that respondent clearly
violated this provision when she used the JST Conference as a good reason to
request the LGU for the release of the P8,000.00 trust fund. The OCA based its observation from the
following facts, namely: (1) the pictures taken in Camiguin showed the court
personnel enjoying their outing but no photo was taken or presented which would
prove that they had a consultation or meeting before they went swimming; (2)
respondent did not submit her supposed action plan based on her findings made
during the staff development program; and (3) respondent failed to comply with
OCA Circular No. 28-2003, which requires that the JST shall hold its meeting on
the last working day of the month and the minutes of said meeting be submitted
to the CMO, OCA within ten (10) days from the date of the meeting.
We do not see how respondent
could equate such activity to “staff development and improvement of judicial
service to the public” when all she and her staff did was to eat and swim. It can be gleaned that only the court
personnel of RTC, Branch 11, including respondent, benefited from the P8,000.00
trust fund, which was utilized for their own recreation. Respondent’s act falls under the prohibition
under Section 1, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
Assuming arguendo that indeed, there was a JST
meeting conducted in Camiguin, respondent should have been aware of the parameters for organizing the JST, as
set by OCA
Circular No.
28-2003,[12]
particularly the submission of the minutes of the JST meeting. Respondent cannot escape responsibility by
contending that Judge Rojas assumed office only on June 2004, while the JST
meeting was conducted on April 2004. Respondent
took the initiative to organize the JST meeting, even without a presiding
judge. She should have at least
submitted a copy of the minutes, as well as the Court Performance Inventory, to
the CMO to observe transparency.
Respondent also
violated Section 4(a) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees which requires all government resources and powers of
their respective offices to be employed and used efficiently, effectively,
honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and
revenues.
The act of
respondent in falsely writing the names of the SC auditors in the attendance
sheet with signatures to make it appear that they had lunch at the Del Monte
Clubhouse constitutes dishonesty. Similarly, respondent’s solicitation of a
note from the LGU to allegedly cover the meals and snacks of the Supreme Court
auditors violates Section 1, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. Respondent, together with her staff, used the
solicited note at Del Monte Clubhouse instead of returning it to the LGU after
the SC auditors declined her invitation for lunch. The conduct exhibited by respondent falls
short of the standard prescribed by the Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel.
We cannot however
concur with OCA’s dismissal of the charge of forgery against respondent. Respondent has admitted signing the name of
Judge Rojas, not only in her Certificate of Service but also in some court
orders. In that regard, respondent notes
that it has been the practice in said court that “[o]ther orders were in fact
allowed to be signed in his signature after reading to him the text of the
order over his cellular phone, and in the afternoon of that same day, the
original copy of the order will be brought to him for his signature.”[13] Respondent’s
categorical admission is sufficient to establish a case of forgery against
complainant. The argument of respondent
that she was authorized by Judge Rojas to sign his name is immaterial to forgery.
We find it alarming that Judge Rojas
consented to this act. In the case of Gonzales-Austria
v. Abaya,[14]
the Court, adopting the recommendation of then Court of Appeals Justice Oscar M. Herrera, held
thus:
As a lawyer and branch clerk of court, she ought to
know that under no circumstances is her act of signing the name of the judge
permissible. She could have probably released the order with the statement that
it is 'upon orders of the judge' or 'by authority of the judge' but she could
not under any circumstance make it appear as she did in this case that the
Judge signed the order when in fact he did not x x x.
x x x x
x x x Nor could her void act in signing the name of
the judge be validly ratified by the latter. Judge Abaya himself is bereft of
any power to authorize the clerk of court to sign his name in his official
capacity in a matter pending adjudication before him. The issuance of the order
in question is strictly judicial and is exclusively vested in the judge which
is beyond his authority to delegate.
Complainant’s act
of signing the name of Judge Rojas is likewise tantamount to dishonesty.
At this juncture,
it is worth emphasizing that the conduct required of court personnel, from the
presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility so as to be free from any
suspicion that may taint the judiciary.[15] This Court shall not tolerate acts that would
tend to diminish the integrity of the judiciary.
In sum, we find respondent
guilty of (1) falsely writing the names of SC auditors with corresponding
signatures in the attendance sheet; (2) forging the signature of Judge Rojas in
the certificate of service; (3) failure to comply with OCA Circular No. 28-2003
regarding the holding of the JST meeting; and (4) using the solicited note from
the LGU to cover the meals of the RTC personnel. The first two acts mentioned above constitute
acts of dishonesty that merit dismissal from service, pursuant to Section 52(A)(1)
of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
WHEREFORE,
respondent is DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all salaries and
benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in
the Government service, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Associate Justice |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
[12]
The JST shall hold regular monthly meetings on
the last working day of the month and minutes of the meeting shall be submitted
to the Court Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator within ten
(10) days from the date of the meeting.
During the meeting, the JST shall as a group
accomplish the “Court Performance Inventory” form from every quarter x x x x
x x x The accomplished form shall be
submitted to the [CMO, OCA] within ten (10) days from the date of the monthly
meeting at the end of every quarter.