EN BANC
ANNABELLE F. GARCIA, A.M. No. P-07-2311
Clerk of Court, Municipal
Trial (Formerly OCA-IPI
No. 05-2153-P)
Court in Cities, Branch 2
Olongapo City,
Complainant, Present:
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
- v
e r s u s - CARPIO
MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO, JR.,*
NACHURA and
REYES,
JJ.
AMELIA C. BADA, Court
Interpreter, Municipal
Trial
Court in Cities, Branch 2,
Olongapo City,
Respondent. Promulgated:
August
23, 2007
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
R E S O L U T I O N
PER
CURIAM:
This
is an administrative complaint against respondent Amelia C. Bada, court
interpreter in Branch 2 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of
Olongapo City.
In
a memorandum[1]
addressed to respondent, complainant Annabelle F. Garcia, clerk of court of
Branch 2, MTCC, Olongapo City, stated that she personally saw the respondent
handing the time card of one Herminio Reyes, another court interpreter in the
same branch, to a security guard on December 23, 2004. When complainant
confronted respondent about the incident, the latter allegedly admitted having
“always” punched Reyes' time card for him in the month of December 2004. Thus,
complainant asked respondent to explain in writing why she should not be
administratively charged for violation of civil service rules and the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel.
In
her written explanation,[2]
respondent stated that Reyes asked her to punch his time card for him because
he had to attend to a very important matter. She “felt obliged” to do so as
Reyes was her officemate. She also emphasized that it was her first time to
have done it and that it was the last time she would do so.
Thereafter,
complainant filed a letter-complaint in the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) charging respondent with grave misconduct. On April 4, 2005, the OCA
directed respondent to file her comment.
In
her comment,[3]
respondent vehemently denied that she admitted having “always” punched Reyes'
card for him in the month of December 2004. She reiterated that the December
23, 2004 incident was the first and last time she did it. She also justified
her action as being impelled by “humanitarian reason(s)” as Reyes was then experiencing
severe pain due to prostatitis. She stated that she felt constrained to help
him as he was her kumpare. For these reasons, respondent stated she
honestly believed that she did not commit grave misconduct nor did she violate
civil service rules and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
Respondent
also alleged in her comment that she was being singled out by complainant
because of the on-going feud in their office between the latter and Reyes. The
latter allegedly protested the performance rating he received from complainant
for the period July to December 2004. She surmised that had she punched the
time card of a person other than Reyes, complainant would not have filed a case
against her. Respondent also claimed that the records show that she had never
been charged with any offense nor was there ever any question about her
official performance and conduct in all her years of service in the government.
After evaluating the
complaint and respondent's comment thereon, the OCA submitted its memorandum.[4] It
stated that the reasons offered by respondent were not enough to warrant her
exculpation from administrative sanction. The OCA saw it fit to remind
respondent that government officials and employees must devote their working
hours in the service of the public.[5] A
court employee therefore cannot leave the office before the working hours are
over. Moreover, a court employee must not make it appear as if he left the
office at a later time when he, in fact, did so earlier.
The
OCA further stated that, although respondent did not directly benefit from
punching Reyes’ time card, she caused the commission of a wrong that tainted
the integrity of the office she held. However, the OCA found that the offense
committed by respondent was only simple, not grave, misconduct. Accordingly, it
recommended that respondent be given a penalty of suspension for two months.
We
disagree with the finding of the OCA that respondent's act was merely simple
misconduct.
OCA
Circular No. 7-2003[6] states
that:
In the submission of
Certificates of Service and Daily Time Records (DTRs)/Bundy Cards by Judges and
court personnel, the following guidelines shall be observed:
1. After
the end of each month, every official and employee of each court shall
accomplish the Daily Time Record (Civil Service Form No. 48)/Bundy Card,
indicating therein truthfully and accurately the time of arrival in and
departure from the office xxx. (emphasis supplied)
The said circular clearly provides that every court
official and employee must truthfully and accurately indicate the time of his
or her arrival at and departure from the office. Equally important is the fact
that this Court has already held that the punching of one's daily time record
is a personal act of the holder. It cannot and should not be delegated
to anyone else. This is mandated by the word every in the above-quoted
circular.[7]
Respondent's
act of punching another employee's time card falls within the ambit of
falsification. She made it appear as though it was Reyes himself who punched
his own card and, at the same time, made the card reflect a log-out time
different from the actual time of departure. For this, respondent must be held
administratively liable. Rule XVII, Section 4 of the Omnibus Civil Service
Rules and Regulations (Civil Service Rules) provides:
Section 4.
Falsification or irregularities in the keeping of time records will render the
guilty officer or employee administratively liable xxx.
Falsification of daily time records is also an act of
dishonesty. Under Rule XIV, Section 21 of the Civil Service Rules,
falsification of official documents and dishonesty are both grave offenses. As
such, they carry the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of
retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual
disqualification for reemployment in government service.[8]
To
temper the harshness of the rules, this Court has refrained from imposing the
extreme penalty of dismissal in a number of cases.[9]
The presence of such factors as length of service in the judiciary,
acknowledgment of infractions and feeling of remorse and family circumstances,
among other things, have had a mitigating effect in the imposition of penalties
on erring court officials and personnel.
However, we see no reason for leniency in the instant case as respondent
did not even express any remorse for what she did and instead offered all sorts
of excuses to justify the same. Furthermore, falsification of an official
document is punishable as a criminal offense under Article 171 of the Revised
Penal Code. We cannot tolerate the commission of a criminal act.
We
have stated over and over again that:
[c]ourt employees, from the
presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, being public servants in an office
dispensing justice, should always act with a high degree of professionalism and
responsibility. Their conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and
decorum, but must also be in accordance with the law and court regulations. No
position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder
than an office in the judiciary. Court employees should be models of
uprightness, fairness and honesty to maintain the people's respect and faith in
the judiciary. They should avoid any act or conduct that would diminish public
trust and confidence in the courts. Indeed, those connected with dispensing
justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility.[10]
WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby found GUILTY
of falsification of official documents and dishonesty. She is ordered DISMISSED
from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except
accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or
instrumentality of the government, including government owned or controlled
corporations.
SO ORDERED.
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
|
|
MA. ALICIA M.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
( N
o p a r t )
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice |
* No part.
[1] The memorandum is erroneously dated January 6, 2004. It should read January 6, 2005, rollo, p. 3.
[2] Dated January 14, 2005, id., p. 4.
[3] Dated May 6, 2005, id., p. 6.
[4] Dated January 6, 2006, id., p. 9.
[5] Supreme Court Amended Memorandum Order No. 49-2003 dated December 1, 2003, Enjoining the Use of Bundy Clocks in All Courts.
[6] Re: Certificates of Service and Daily Time Records (DTRs)/Bundy Cards of Judges and Personnel of the Lower Courts.
[7] In Re: Irregularities in the Use of Logbook and Daily Time Records by Clerk of Court Raquel D. J. Razon, Cash Clerk Joel M. Magtuloy and Utility Worker Tiburcio O. Morales, MTC-OCC, Guagua, Pampanga, A.M. No. P-06-2243, 26 September 2006, 503 SCRA 52.
[8] Office of the Court Administrator v. Magno, 419 Phil 593, 602 (2001); Sec. 22 (a), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), as amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999 (a).
[9] An
example is the aforementioned case of In Re: Irregularities in the Use of
Logbook and Daily Time Records by Clerk of Court Raquel D. J. Razon,
Cash Clerk Joel M. Magtuloy and Utility Worker Tiburcio O. Morales, MTC-OCC,
Guagua, Pampanga. Razon asked Morales to log-in and log-out her time card
for her on September 7, 2004. She alleged that she was going to the Supreme
Court on official business and wanted to make it appear as though she reported
for work that day. Morales acquiesced. However, it was Magtuloy who actually
logged-in and logged-out her time card for he was the one near the bundy clock
as he was then about to punch his own time card. The Court found respondents
guilty of falsification of official document and dishonesty. However, they were
not dismissed from the service. As to Magtuloy and Morales, the Court took into
consideration the fact that the administrative case is their first
administrative offense in their 9 years and 37 years, respectively, in government
service. They were, however, given a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or similar acts in the future shall merit a more severe sanction from the
Court. As to Razon, the Court deemed it proper to impose upon her a fine of P2,000
only with the same stern warning given to Magtuloy and Morales as she readily
acknowledged her offense, offered her sincere apologies, and promised not to do
it again. Although this case was already her second administrative case in her
27 years with the government, the records show that the first one was
dismissed. As such, this is only her first administrative offense. Thus, there
was no showing that their administrative liabilities merited their dismissal
from the service.
[10] Office of the Court Administrator v. Juan, A.M. No. P-03-1726, 22 July 2004, 434 SCRA 654, 659, citing Albior v. Auguis, A.M. No. P-01-1472, 26 June 2003, 405 SCRA 1 and Castelo v. Florendo, A.M. No. P-96-1179, 10 October 2003, 413 SCRA 219.