`
Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
JUDGE
GLORIA B. AGLUGUB, |
|
A.M.
No. P-99-1348 |
|
Complainant, |
|
(Formerly OCA I.P.I No.
99-696-P) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUNO,
C.J. |
|
|
|
QUISUMBING, |
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, |
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, |
|
|
|
CARPIO, |
|
|
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
- versus - |
|
|
|
|
|
CARPIO-MORALES,
|
|
|
|
AZCUNA,
|
|
|
|
TINGA, |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, |
|
|
|
GARCIA, |
|
|
|
VELASCO, Jr., |
|
|
|
NACHURA, and |
|
|
|
REYES, JJ. |
|
IMELDA S. PERLEZ, |
|
|
|
CLERK
OF COURT I, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
October
15, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
PER
CURIAM:
In
a letter-complaint dated August 12, 1999, Judge Gloria B. Aglugub
(complainant) of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 2 of San Pedro Laguna,
charged Imelda S. Perlez (respondent), Clerk of Court
I of the said branch, of infidelity in the custody of court records,
insubordination, gross inefficiency, grave misconduct, falsification,
misrepresentation, dishonesty and neglect of duty.[1]
Complainant
claims that respondent, on several occasions, was unable to locate missing
court records in her custody; she refused to comply with orders requiring her
to submit transcripts of stenographic notes causing delays in the disposition
of cases; she refused to transmit records of cases for review and copies of
warrants of arrests to the proper agencies; she tells practitioners that she
does not know how to prepare court processes; she caused the break-open of the the judge's chambers by means of picklocks to get records
and caused their transfer to another branch without authority from the court; she
has the propensity of putting the blame on complainant for missing records; she
caused the typing of a case number in a commitment order, in addition to one
already written, and certified it, making it appear that the same was intended
for said case; she stated in her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) in her application
with the judiciary that she graduated from college in 1981 but it was found out
later that she was a candidate for graduation only in the summer of 1997; and she
failed to submit monthly reports for May, June, July 1999 and report on the physical inventory of cases
despite receipt of the court's memorandum dated July 13, 1999.[2]
In
her Comment dated December 3, 1999, respondent explained that while there were
instances when records were misplaced, they were however easily located or
reconstituted without causing damage to litigants; the complaint did not
specify which orders she refused to obey and which records she refused to
transmit; while there was an instance when she asked a lawyer to provide her
with a sample form of a writ of demolition, it was done in the presence of and
with the acquiescence of complainant; while she did break into the
complainant's chamber, she did so only to get records of a detention prisoner
who was suffering from illness and who, under the law, was entitled to
provisional liberty; she does not put the blame on complainant regarding
missing records, she just tells litigants that some records are brought home by
the judge for study; it was not respondent, but Marivic
Gonzales, Staff Assistant II, who typed a criminal case number on the
commitment order of another case; respondent placed in her PDS that she is a
college graduate under the honest belief that she finished her Accounting
Course; she finished her last semester in college not knowing that her grades
in three subjects were incomplete; in any case, she was able to complete the
said subjects in the summer of 1997; she always prepared her monthly reports on
time until the months of May to July of 1999 when she and her staff could no
longer cope with the work due to voluminous records.[3]
The
case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for its
evaluation, report and recommendation.[4]
In
the Report dated
The
Court required both parties to manifest within ten days from notice if they were
willing to submit the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings filed.[6] Respondent submitted her Manifestation dated
In
a Memorandum dated
As
recommended, the Court issued a Resolution dated
Subsequently,
in a Memorandum dated
A careful review of the records indicates that respondent is administratively liable.
While not all the
accusations against respondent were substantiated, one charge, however,
remained incontrovertible. Respondent
having made it appear in her personal data sheet that she is a college graduate
although she is not. We do not subscribe
to respondent's excuse that she did it under the honest belief that she had
finished the Accounting Course at
In the case of Court Administrator vs. Judge Ricardo M. Magtibay, A.M. No. R-254-MTJ and 88-1-2807-MCTC, May 9, 1988, for Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge and Misrepresentation in Filling Up his Personal Data Sheet for Judges, the Court found respondent guilty beyond reasonable doubt and ordered the latter's dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all salaries, benefits and leave credits to which he may be entitled.
Likewise, in A.M. No. 2003-9-SC, Re: Adm. Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of public document, Benjamin Katly, respondent, the Court dismissed respondent for having twice represented in his personal data sheet that he was a college graduate when in reality he was not. It was ruled therein that his making a false statement in his Personal Data Sheet constitutes an act of dishonesty.
Under the schedule of penalties adopted by the Civil Service, gross dishonesty is classified as a grave offense and the penalty imposable is dismissal even on its first offense.
In view of the
foregoing, undersigned respectfully recommends that the resolution dated
December 4, 2002 dropping respondent, Imelda Perlez,
Clerk of Court, MTC, Branch 2, San Pedro, Laguna from the service for being
absent without official leave be SET ASIDE and that she be DISMISSED from the
service for gross dishonesty with consequent forfeiture of all retirement
benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in
any branch of the government including government-owned or controlled
corporation.[11]
The
recommendation of the OCA that the Resolution of the Court dated December 4,
2002 dropping respondent from the rolls be set aside is not well-taken. The Resolution itself expressly declared that
the dropping of the name of respondent from service is without prejudice to the
outcome of the present administrative case.
However,
the Court adopts in full the findings and recommendation of the OCA that
respondent is administratively liable for dishonesty.
Respondent
cannot deny that she misrepresented herself as a college graduate in her
PDS. Her only excuse is that when she
applied as Court Interpreter and placed in her PDS that she was a college
graduate, she did so under the honest belief that she had finished her
degree. She claims that she was able to
finish the last semester of her course; however she did not know that her
grades in Principle’s of Science, PE 3 and Accounting 8 were incomplete as she
already got pregnant and was preparing for her marriage. It was only when she
tried to enroll for college of law that she learned that her grades in the said
three subjects were incomplete. She then
enrolled the said subjects in Arellano and finished them by the summer of 1997.
Thereafter, a certificate and a diploma were issued to her. She also claims that she refrained from
stating in documents that she is a college graduate after she learned of her
deficiencies in her subjects.[12]
Respondent’s
claim of good faith does not persuade the Court.
One
who invokes good faith must show honesty of intention, free from knowledge of
circumstances which ought to put one upon inquiry.[13]
As respondent admitted in her letter to
the OCA, she had many absences in her three subjects because of her pregnancy
and the preparations for her marriage; she was also not able to attend the
commencement exercises. These, together
with the lack of any diploma or transcript of records stating that she is a
graduate, should have put her upon inquiry as to the fact of her having
finished her degree. Her claim of good
faith is clearly self-serving and does not absolve her from liability.
The
importance of accomplishing a PDS with utmost honesty cannot be stressed
enough.[14] Its accomplishment is required under the
Civil Service Rules and Regulations, and since it is a requirement in
connection with employment in the government, the making of an untruthful
statement therein is intimately connected with such employment.[15]
Respondent
falsified an official document to gain unwarranted advantage over other more
qualified applicants to the same position.
She cannot be said, therefore, to have measured up to the standards
required of a public servant.[16] Indeed, respondent's act of stating in her PDS that she was a college
graduate when the truth is otherwise amounts to dishonesty by misrepresentation
and falsification of an official document that warrants dismissal from the
service even for the first offense.[17] As an accessory penalty, her retirement
benefits are forfeited due to the falsehood and deceit that marked her
assumption of office, traits that are undesirable and unbecoming a public
officer or employee.[18]
The
Court does not tolerate dishonesty. Persons involved in the dispensation of
justice, from the highest official to the lowest clerk, must live up to the
strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness and diligence in the
public service.[19] As the assumption of public office is
impressed with paramount public interest, which requires the highest standards
of ethical standards, persons aspiring for public office must observe honesty,
candor and faithful compliance with the law.[20]
WHEREFORE,
respondent Imelda S. Perlez, Clerk of Court I of the
Municipal Trial Court, Branch 2 of San Pedro Laguna, is found GUILTY of
dishonesty. She is DISMISSED from
the service effective immediately, with prejudice to re-employment in any
government agency and government-owned or controlled corporation, with
forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits.
SO
ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
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 |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-3.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
De Guzman v.
[14]
Re:Anonymous
Complaint Against Mr. Rodel M. Gabriel, A.M. No.
2005-18-SC,
[15] Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document Against Noel V. Luna, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, 463 Phil. 878, 890 (2003); De Guzman v. Delos Santos, supra note 13, at 436; Re:Anonymous Complaint Against Mr. Rodel M. Gabriel, supra note 14, at 376.
[16]
De Guzman v.
[17] Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document Against Noel V. Luna, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, supra note 15, at 890; De Guzman v. Delos Santos, supra note 13, at 436.
[18]
De Guzman v.
[19]
De Guzman v.
[20]
De Guzman v.