THIRD DIVISION
OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, - versus - CYRIL JOTIC, Court
Interpreter III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, Tarlac City; and JOSELITO
R. ESPINOSA, Process Server, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial
Court, Tarlac City, Respondents. |
A.M.
No. P-08-2542
(Formerly A.M. No.
08-1-09-RTC) Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: November
28, 2008 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
On
A
team was dispatched to conduct a discreet investigation in order to validate
the complaint.[2] The investigation was conducted on November
15 and 16, 2007.[3]
In
a Memorandum[4] dated
January 3, 2008 submitted to the Court, the OCA reported that on November 16,
2007, Court Interpreter Cyril Jotic, RTC, Branch 64; and Process Server
Joselito Espinosa, Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the same RTC, both of
Tarlac City, made untruthful statements in
their respective logbooks when they entered their time of attendance therein.
Quoted
hereunder are the pertinent portions of the Memorandum:
On
x x x x
When the team returned to the OCC,
it was already open and only two personnel were present. However, upon inspection of the [logbook] it
was discovered that Process Server Joselito Espinosa made a superimposition of
Around
x x x x
While the team was still in
In
a Resolution[5] of
In
her Comment[6] dated
Respondent
Jotic narrates that her attention was called by the team on why she wrote
After
the team left RTC Br. 64, Civil Clerk Joy Agnes notified respondent Jotic that
the superimposed entry of
The
respondent denies that she barged into RTC Br. 63 and angrily confronted the
team. She claims that she was “hurt” when the team refused to make the
necessary correction because it was the respondent herself who declared that
she arrived at
In
his Comment[7] dated
He
admits that he made the superimposition, but the same was made in good faith to
reflect the true time of his arrival.
Verification
from the OCA Leave Division shows that for the period July 2007 to November 2007,
both respondents Joselito R. Espinosa and Cyril Jotic had incurred no
tardiness, except on
Respondent
Jotic admitted in her Comment that she arrived
at
The
OCA opines that the true reason
behind respondent Jotic’s uneasy feeling was attributable to the irregularity
she committed and her dread of being discovered. Human
experience dictates that he who has nothing to hide is the last to quiver in
fear. It is not material whether the
correct time of the respondent’s arrival was 8:28 a.m. or 8:58 a.m. What is of significance is that she
intentionally wrote the time 7:58 a.m. when actually she arrived at a much
later time. The facts and the evidence,
coupled with the respondent’s own admission, sufficiently establish her
culpability.
Respondent
Jotic’s act of reflecting an earlier time of arrival on November 16, 2007, when
in truth she arrived at a later time, amounts to the falsification of a DTR,
which, in this case, happens to be an attendance logbook.
The
making of untrue statements in the attendance logbook quite palpably demonstrates
a deliberate attempt to conceal or suppress information on her tardiness on
said date.
It
is also noted that the respondent, knowing fully well that the matter was not
yet settled, unyieldingly wrote the
time 8:28 a.m. in her DTR and submitted the same to the Leave
Division-OCA. This shows respondent
Jotic’s stubbornness and persistence in having her way, no matter what.
The
OCA finds appalling respondent Jotic’s attempt to sidetrack the issue by accusing the members of the OCA
investigating team of rude behavior. Her
accusation lacks substance. Other than the respondent’s bare allegation,
there is no statement or document on record to suggest that the team members
acted rudely in the course of their investigation. Neither is there any proof of any
protestation by the personnel of RTC,
With
respect to respondent Espinosa, he, too, cannot escape liability. The OCA finds his excuse – a malfunctioning
watch – absurd. It is inconceivable that he arrived at
8:05 a.m. because as borne out by the OCA Report, the team arrived at around
8:05 a.m. and only Sheriff Antonio Leaño, Jr., was present but had not yet
logged in his attendance on the logbook because the Office of the Clerk of
Court was still closed. Respondent
Espinosa admitted that his watch was malfunctioning and he only relied on
Sheriff Leaño’s information that the time of his arrival was 8:05 a.m. This explanation we find contrary to common
sense as it projects the sheriff as a timekeeper of some sort. Plain and simple, the respondent put up but a
very lame excuse.
The
OCA deems it surprising that both the respondents were consistently punctual
from July 2007 to November 2007 save when the OCA investigation team conducted
a surprise inspection. This circumstance
casts doubt on the veracity of their respective time arrival entries in the
attendance logbooks.
The OCA then recommended:
x x x x
4.
That Court Interpreter III Cyril B. Jotic, RTC, Br. 64, Tarlac City be
found GUILTY of DISHONESTY and MISCONDUCT and accordingly be meted with the
penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all retirement
benefits, except leave credits, with perpetual disqualification from
re-employment in any government agency, including government-owned and
controlled corporation, and with cancellation of civil service
eligibility.
5.
That Process Server Joselito R. Espinosa be found GUILTY of DISHONESTY
and accordingly be meted with the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except leave credits, with perpetual
disqualification from re-employment in any government agency, including
government-owned and controlled corporation, and with cancellation of civil
service eligibility.
6.
That Atty. Marilyn M. Martin, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Br. 64, be
required to explain why no administrative disciplinary action should be taken
against her for failing to closely supervise the personnel of RTC, Br. 64,
The Court agrees with the report of
the OCA, except as to the penalty imposed.
The issue in this administrative case boils
down to whether or not respondents Cyril B. Jotic and Joselito R. Espinosa were
dishonest in not reflecting the correct time in their attendance logbook on
November 16, 2007.
The
act of making a false statement in the attendance logbook renders an employee
liable for dishonesty and falsification.
Any willful concealment of fact in the logbook constitutes mental dishonesty amounting to
misconduct.
Dishonesty
refers to the:
[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.[9]
The
respondent should be reminded that dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no
place in the judiciary.[10]
A
court employee, being a public servant, must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity. For everyone
connected professionally with the judicial institution, the duty is imperative
and sacred to build up its eminence as a true and revered temple of justice.[11]
Republic Act 6713 – the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees – enunciates the
State’s policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility
in the public service.[12] And no other office in the government service
exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an
employee than the judiciary.[13]
We
have repeatedly emphasized that the conduct of court personnel, from the
presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and must
be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, free from any
suspicion that may taint the judiciary.
The Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or
omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice,
which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just
tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[14]
In
Re: Memorandum dated Sept. 27, 1999 of Ma.
Corazon M. Molo, OIC, Office of the Administrative Services,
Office of the Court Administrator,[15]
it was held:
No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from the occupant than the judicial office. Those connected with the dispensation of justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility. Clerks of court, in particular, must be individuals of competence, honesty and probity, charged as they are with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings. This Court has consistently held that persons involved in the administration of justice ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service. The conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach.
This
Court, speaking in Pizarro v. Villegas,[16]
held that:
We stress that the conduct of even minor employees mirrors the image of the courts they serve; thus, they are required to preserve the judiciary’s good name and standing as a true temple of justice x x x.
The
Court cannot turn a blind eye to what is plainly a transgression of the
law. The slightest breach of duty by,
and the slightest irregularity in the conduct of, court officers and employees
detract from the dignity of the courts and erode the faith of the people in the
judiciary.
Under
Section 23,[17] Rule
XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order 292[18]
and other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, dishonesty and falsification of public
document are considered grave offenses for which the penalty of dismissal is prescribed
even for the first offense. Section 9 of
said Rule likewise provides that the “penalty of dismissal shall carry with it
cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement
benefits, and the disqualification from re-employment in the government
service.” This penalty is without prejudice to criminal liability of the
respondent.[19]
The
unwavering policy of the Court in the matter of falsification of public
documents duly proven to have been committed by government employees, especially
those under its administrative supervision, has been the imposition of the
maximum administrative penalty. This
penalty may seem a bit harsh, but its imposition is not without basis. The raison
d’etre for maintaining such severity was succinctly stated in Mirano v. Saavedra,[20]
where the Court stated:
Public service requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline. A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity. The administration of justice is a sacred task. By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, all those involved in it must faithfully adhere to, hold inviolate, and invigorate the principle solemnly enshrined in the 1987 Constitution that a public office is a public trust; and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be above suspicion. Indeed every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.[21]
On
numerous occasions, this Court did not hesitate in imposing such extreme
punishment on employees found guilty of grave offenses.[22] However, considering the length of service of
Court Interpreter III Cyril B. Jotic, which is more than 15 years, and the
length of service of Process Server Joselito R. Espinosa, which is more than 21
years, and the fact that this is their first offense, the Court deems it proper
to reduce the recommended penalties of the OCA.
Lastly,
the irregularities in timekeeping occurred in view of what we consider
deficiency on the part of the Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Marilyn M. Martin,
in the supervision of the court personnel of RTC, Branch 64. Had she been fully attentive to her
responsibilities as supervisor and had she not neglected to monitor the daily
attendance and the presence of the court’s employees in their respective work
stations, the incidents subject of this administrative matter would not have
happened so easily and unchecked.
WHEREFORE, the
Court finds Court Interpreter III Cyril B. Jotic, RTC, Br. 64,
Clerk of Court Atty. Marilyn M.
Martin of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64,
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 4.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Re Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Secretary 1, and Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division, A.M. Nos. 2001-7-SC & 2001-8-SC, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 1, 15; Office of the Court Administrator v. Yan, A.M. No. P-98-1281, April 27, 2005, 457 SCRA 389, 397; Alabastro v. Moncada, Sr., A.M. No. P-04-1887, December 16, 2004,447 SCRA 42, 53.
[10] Concerned Citizen v. Garbal, Jr., A.M. No. P-05-2098, December 15, 2005, 478 SCRA 13, 25; Corpuz v. Ramiterre, Adm. Matter No. P-04-1779, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 108, 122; Concerned Employees v. Generoso, A.M. No. 2004-33-SC, August 24, 2005, 467 SCRA 614, 624.
[11] Villanueva
v.
[12] Alawi v. Alauya, 335 Phil. 1096, 1104 (1997).
[13] Rabe
v.
[14] Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, 435 Phil. 1, 9 (2002).
[15] 459 Phil. 973, 984-985 (2003), cited in Report on the Financial Audit Conducted at the Municipal Trial Courts of Bani, Alaminos, and Lingayen, in Pangasinan, A.M. No. 01-2-18-MTC, December 5, 2003, 417 SCRA 106.
[16] 398 Phil. 837, 844 (2000).
[17] Sec. 23. Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified into grave. Less grave, and light, depending on the gravity of its (sic) nature and effects of said acts on the government service.
The following are grave offense with its corresponding penalties:
(a) Dishonesty (1st offense, Dismissal)
(b) Falsification of official documents (1st offense, Dismissal)
[18] Administrative Code of 1987.
[19] Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, 450 Phil. 59 (2003).
[20] A.M. No. P-89-383, August 4, 1993,
225 SCRA 77.
[21]
[22] Moner v. Ampatua, A.M. No. SCC-98-3(P), September 3, 1998, 295 SCRA 20; Marasigan v. Buena, A.M. No. 95-1-01-MTCC, January 5, 1998, 284 SCRA 1; Lumiqued v. Exevea, G.R. No. 117565, November 18, 1997, 282 SCRA 125; Re: Financial Audit in RTC, General Santos City, A.M. No. 96-1-25-RTC, April 18, 1997, 271 SCRA 302.