|
A
VERY CONCERNED EMPLOYEE AND CITIZEN, Complainant, - versus - |
A.M. No.
P-05-2100
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
|
|
Respondent. |
Promulgated: December
27, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PER
CURIAM:
In a
period of one year, Lourdes S. de Mateo, Clerk III of the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities (MTCC),
According to
the letter-complaints, respondent was habitually tardy but she falsified her Daily
Time Records (DTRs).
She habitually reported for work between
In her Comment
dated
Upon this
Court’s order to investigate, report and recommend
action regarding the complaints, Regional Trial Court Judge Oscar E. Dinopol found respondent liable for grave misconduct and
falsification on
Following receipt
and review of the aforementioned investigation, report and recommendation by
Judge Dinopol, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
concluded that:
1. The comparative exposition of the genuine and certified documents against the simulated Tax Declarations and Certificate of Real Estate Tax Payments verily shows that the falsification could not have been consummated without the knowledge and participation of respondent;
2. The indorsement dated
3. Respondent [was] closely associated with one Gloria “Diding” Pregua, who [was] not an employee of the Halls of Justice and a known fixer who help[ed] her out in the processing of the bail bonds of accused in their sala;
4. Respondent was involved in the anomalous activities concerning the case filed by Marbel Fit Mart, Inc., where the assessed and market values of the property of the bondsmen were bloated and the certificates of tax clearance were falsified. She was even the one who typed the bail bond papers, prepared the tax declaration and filled up the entries covered by correction fluid;
5. The evidence and documents on record [warrant] a conclusion that respondent [was] guilty of grave misconduct in connection with the performance of her official functions and duties as Clerk III. She participated in the falsification of documents relative to the subject property bond of the named accused, which, as Clerk III, she has the duty to receive and record, and to refer to the Clerk of Court;
6. Respondent indeed initiated and consented to
the falsification of her DTR for the period covering 11 to 25 October
1999. Her usual tardiness for the said
period, except on
The OCA recommended
that respondent Lourdes S. de Mateo, Clerk III of the MTCC, Koronadal
City, South Cotabato, be HELD GUILTY of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct and be DISMISSED
from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to
reemployment in the government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities,
or agencies including government-owned or controlled corporations.[8]
Based on the
record of this administrative matter we note, first, that respondent offered no
explanation on the discrepancy between the entries in her DTR and the entries logged
by the Head Guard. Although the DTRs
were signed by Presiding Judge Agustin T. Sardido,
certifying to the correctness of the entries,[9] we
find, however, that the Head Guard had discreetly logged in the actual times of
respondent’s arrival and departures, upon the instruction of Executive Judge Francisco
S. Ampig, Jr.[10]
There appears no reason why the Head Guard
should falsify his entries which differ from those of respondent, and thus we
agree to rely on his entries. Moreover,
as the OCA report stated, it was the task of the Clerk of Court, and not the
Judge (particularly Judge Sardido) to certify to the
correctness of entries in the DTR.[11]
As to respondent’s
participation in the falsification of a bail bond document, the OCA report gave
credence to the sworn statement of Lydia Jayme who made a detailed narration of
how the falsifications were done. The
OCA also considered as supporting evidence the contested documents supporting
the bail bond,[12]
e.g., the falsified tax
declarations, a handwritten note by the respondent addressed to one Nita Frias
evidencing that respondent knew of the questioned bail bonds and she had, in
fact, asked Diding to speed up the processing.[13]
Furthermore, as Clerk III, respondent de
Mateo had the task to docket criminal complaints and keep a record book of
warrants of arrest issued.[14]
Significantly,
we note, second, that respondent de Mateo denied all the accusations levelled at her and averred that her accusers were motivated
mainly by ill will. Be that as it may,
we abide by the established doctrine, in
administrative proceedings, that the complainant has the burden of proving by
substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint.[15]
We shall proceed with the task of
evaluating complainant’s evidence.
Substantial
evidence in an administrative case consists of that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[16]
In this case, the evidence relied upon
by Judge Dinopol, who investigated the case, does not
indubitably show that respondent had a direct hand in the falsification of the
documents. First, the sworn statement of
witness Lydia Jayme cannot be the sole basis to
determine the liability of respondent without any corroboration. We find, based on the record,
that she was not even physically available during hearings to vouch for
her statements. Second, the handwritten
note of respondent addressed to one Nita Frias was not authenticated or corroborated
by any witness. Third, the alleged
documents supporting the bail bond application, by themselves, do not show that
these were indeed falsifications, without further corroboration by credible
witnesses.
Coming now to
the imposable penalty, we agree that falsification of daily time records is patent
dishonesty.[17]
Dishonesty is “(d)isposition to lie, cheat,
deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty,
probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness;
disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.”[18]
Dishonesty, being a grave offense,
carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of
retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and with perpetual
disqualification from re-employment in government service.[19] Indeed, dishonesty is a malevolent act that
has no place in the Judiciary.[20] Finding that the respondent offered no
satisfactory explanation concerning the charges of dishonesty against her, and
absent any circumstance to mitigate the imposable penalty, the Court finds the OCA
recommendation of her dismissal appropriate.
Respondent,
it should be stressed, failed to live up to the standards of honesty and
integrity in the public service. As the
Constitution felicitously phrases it, public office is a public trust. Inherent
in this mandate of trust is the observance of prescribed office hours and the
efficient use thereof for public service, if only to recompense the Government,
and ultimately the people, who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary. Thus, to inspire public confidence and respect
for the justice system, court officials and employees are at all times behooved
to strictly observe official time. They
must bear in mind that punctuality is a virtue, but absenteeism and tardiness
are impermissible.[21]
The Court is
duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline errant employees
and to weed out those who are found undesirable.[22]
We cannot countenance any act or
omission by any court employee that violates the norm of public accountability,
which would diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[23]
WHEREFORE, for falsification and dishonesty,
respondent Lourdes S. de Mateo, Clerk III of the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC), stationed in Koronadal City, South Cotabato, is hereby DISMISSED
from the service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave
credits), and with prejudice to re-employment 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
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 |
|||
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|||
|
RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice |
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|||
[1] Rollo, pp. 30-31.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Alcantara
v. Judge De Leon, A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2393-RTJ,
[16] Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative (NEECO) II v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 157603,
[17] Re:
Falsification of Daily Time Records of Maria Fe P. Brooks, Court Interpreter,
RTC, Quezon City, Br. 96, A.M. No. P-05-2086 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.
05-9-583-RTC),
[18] Corpuz v.
Ramiterre, Adm. Matter No. P-04-1779 (Formerly A.M. No. 03-12-703-RTC),
[19] Office of
the Court Administrator v. Magno, A.M. No. P-00-1419 (Formerly A.M. No.
99-5-60-MTC),
[20] Civil
Service Commission v. Javier, A. M. No. P-05-1981 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.
02-1516-P),
[21] Re:
Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Sec. I &
Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Off. Clerk of Court, A.M. No. 2001-7-SC
& No. 2001-8-SC, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 1, 16.
[22] Reyes-Macabeo
v. Valle, A.M. No. P-02-1650,
[23] Office of the Court Administrator v. Duque, A.M. P-05-1958
(Formerly OCA-IPI No. 03-1718-P),