FIRST DIVISION
|
JUDGE PLACIDO
C. MARQUEZ and ATTY. LYN L. LLAMASARES, Petitioners, -
versus – LUCILA C. PACARIEM, Stenographer,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, |
A.M. No. P-06-2249
[Formerly
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2351-P] Present: PUNO, C.J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO, CORONA, AZCUNA,
and LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, JJ. Promulgated:
|
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DECISION
LEONARDO - DE CASTRO, J.:
Before us is the administrative complaint filed by petitioners
Judge Placido C. Marquez (Judge Marquez) and Atty. Lyn L. Llamasares (Atty.
Llamasares), former Presiding Judge and former Branch Clerk of Court,
respectively, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Manila charging respondent
Lucila C. Pacariem, former Stenographer III of the said RTC and now
Stenographer detailed at RTC, Branch 23,
This controversy arose from petitioners’ voluminous Complaint[1] dated November 14, 2005 with
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) detailing the numerous infractions
that respondent allegedly committed while working as a court stenographer under
the control and supervision of herein petitioners. Petitioners insist that respondent’s actions
constitute gross acts inimical to her continued employment in the government,
particularly in the judicial department.
Petitioners assert that respondent repeatedly committed numerous
grammatical and typographical errors in her typewritten work despite constant
reminders. Furthermore, she constantly
failed to follow corrections in the drafts which usually required three to five
revisions before they are finalized. In
support of these allegations, petitioners attached to their Complaint two
hundred fifty-four (254) pages worth of error-filled output allegedly made by
respondent.[2]
Petitioners also complain that respondent failed to submit
the transcript of stenographic notes (
2. (a) All stenographers
are required to transcribe all stenographic notes and to attach the transcripts
to the record of the case not later than
twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken.” (Italics supplied)
In five (5) cases, respondent purportedly
did not submit to petitioner Atty. Llamasares the stenographic notes she had
taken immediately at the close of the particular sessions when they were taken,
as required under Section 17, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, which reads in part:
It shall be the duty of
the stenographer who has attended a session of a court to either in the morning
or in the afternoon, to deliver to the
clerk of court, immediately at the close of such morning or afternoon session,
all the notes he has taken, to be attached to the record of the case; and
it shall likewise be the duty of the clerk to demand that the stenographer
comply with said duty. xxx (Italics supplied)
It
is also alleged that respondent misled Atty. Llamasares to sign certifications
dated January 6 and
Section 21. The special leave privileges are subject
to the following conditions:
2.5.2.1. That the official/employee may be granted a
maximum of three (3) days within a calendar year of any or combination of
special leave privileges of his choice which he would opt to avail;
2.5.2.2. That such privileges shall be non-cumulative
and non-commutative;
2.5.2.3. That the official/employee
shall submit the application for the said leave privileges for at least one (1)
week prior to availment except on emergency cases; and
2.5.2.4. Special leave privilege may be availed of by
the official/employee when the occasion is personal to him and that of his
immediate family.
xxx
Section 53. All applications for sick leave of absence
for one (1) full day or more shall be made on the prescribed form and shall be filed immediately upon employee’s return
from such leave. Notice of absence,
however, should be sent to the immediate supervisor and/or the agency head.
Application for sick leave in excess of five (5) successive days shall be
accompanied by a proper medical certificate.
Sick leave may be applied for in
advance in cases where the official or employee will undergo medical
examination or operation or advised to rest in view of ill health duly
supported by a medical certificate.
In ordinary application for sick
leave already taken not exceeding five (5) days, the head of department or agency concerned may duly determine whether
or not granting of sick leave is proper under the circumstances. In case of
doubt, a medical certificate may be required.
Section 54. Sick leave
shall be granted only on account of sickness or disability on the part of the
employee concerned or of any member of his immediate family.
Approval of sick leave, whether with pay or without
pay, is mandatory provided proof of sickness or disability is attached to the
application in accordance with the applicable requirements. Unreasonable delay
in the approval thereof or non-approval without justifiable reason shall be a
ground for appropriate sanction against the official concerned.[4] (Italics
supplied)
In addition to the foregoing,
petitioners accuse respondent of “loafing,” or spending an unseemly amount of
time outside of the office during office hours, as revealed in the court’s
Logbook of Permission Slips covering the period August 27, 2003 to March 28,
2005. From the said Logbook, it can be
gleaned that respondent often left the office purportedly to go to the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP), the Supreme Court (SC), the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS) and other government offices. Petitioners allege that she falsified entries
in the said Logbook. In some instances,
she did not indicate in the same Logbook her purpose for leaving the office
during office hours and, in ten (10) instances, she registered in the Logbook
of Daily Attendance of Court Personnel a time of arrival that is different from
the one noted by the court’s Officer-in-Charge. The same document also discloses that she
allegedly went to this Court on July 9, September 28, October 25, December 14, 2004,
February 11 & 14, and March 2 & 28, 2005 but an inquiry with the SC
Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division revealed that her name did not appear
in the SC Logbook on the said dates.[5]
Petitioners
also allege that respondent obtained a rating of “Unsatisfactory” for her work
performance during the periods of January 1 –
Lastly,
petitioners aver that respondent had a pending administrative case for gross
misconduct filed by her former officemate at Branch 40, Rey C. Mutia. This case was subsequently resolved by this
Court’s Third Division in a Resolution[8] promulgated on
WHEREFORE, we find Lucila C. Pacariem
GUILTY of conduct unbecoming a court employee and impose on her a FINE of
P2,000, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in
the future will be dealt with more severely.[9]
Respondent
filed a Comment[10]
dated
Respondent admits that she does commit mistakes
in the performance of her job but she protests that petitioners magnified even
her trivial errors. She argues that the drafts
presented as evidence were really meant for correction and that corrections are
normal because of the court’s heavy workload and due to petitioner Judge
Marquez’s work method where, for instance, he allegedly sometimes changes the
contents of what he dictated in open court after it is reduced into writing. She maintains that she never neglected her
duties and that she has no pending stenographic notes as indicated by the
Certification issued by petitioner Atty. Llamasares herself.
Furthermore, respondent denies that
she ever engaged in loafing. Whenever
she went out during office hours, these travels were made to the SC, GSIS, Court
of Appeals (CA) and the LBP for “important matters” like filing a loan,
transmitting a TSN to the CA, or to encash checks. In explaining her non-registration in the SC
Logbook, she avers that she usually goes to the SC through the CA, where her
“kumare” would accompany her to the SC which results in her entry without being
asked to register by the SC guards. She
takes issue with the fact that petitioners seem to be monitoring her every move
which included the time of her arrival and departure from the office. She also insists that the alleged difference
of a few minutes between her actual time of arrival and her logbook entry which
petitioners attribute to bad faith on her part is merely the result of
non-synchronicity of watches used by the parties.
Respondent also points to the
fact that several other employees of
In response to the supposed violations
of the 20-day period for transcription of stenographic notes, she refers to her
Answer[11]
dated March 14, 2005 to the Memorandum of petitioner Atty. Llamasares dated
February 28, 2005 involving the same issue, wherein she admits not being able
to submit TSNs within the 20-day period due to heavy workload. However, respondent claims that no party or
lawyer ever complained that she was not able to submit any transcript when
requested and that there was never an instance when Judge Marquez was not able
to decide a case due to non-transcription or delayed transcription of
stenographic notes on her part.
In its Report dated
1. That the
instant complaint be RE-DOCKETED as
a regular administrative case;
2. That
respondent stenographer, Lucila C. Pacariem, be found GUILTY of inefficiency, loafing and inaccuracies in her entries on
the logbook as to time of arrival, for which she should be penalized with SUSPENSION FROM SERVICE for a period of
ONE YEAR without pay;
3. The rest
of the charges be DISMISSED for lack
of merit. (Underscoring supplied)
Thereafter,
the Court, through its Second Division, issued a Resolution[13]
dated
Petitioner
Atty. Llamasares, for herself and petitioner Judge Marquez, filed a
Manifestation[14] dated
In a Resolution[16]
dated
In
an Order dated
After
a thorough review of the records, the Court finds that this case can already be
decided based on the pleadings filed by the parties.
The
issue to be resolved here is whether or not respondent is guilty of the charges
alleged in the Complaint. In this
regard, we find the recommendations of the OCA well-taken.
With respect to the charge of gross
inefficiency or neglect of duty, the Complaint essentially relies on the same
acts upon which petitioner Judge Marquez’s “Unsatisfactory” performance ratings
of respondent for 2004 were based. Petitioners
have adequately shown that such low performance ratings were warranted in view
of the error-filled output that respondent appear to have consistently produced
during said period. While it may be true
that respondent is only human and may commit mistakes, there is simply no excuse
for making the same mistakes repeatedly in her drafts despite her superiors
constantly calling her attention to correct them.
This Court cannot turn a blind
eye to respondent’s well-documented lapses in typing/encoding decisions and
orders of petitioner Judge Marquez despite the apparent leniency of other
judges in rating respondent’s past performance. Judge Marquez was not bound by the performance
ratings given to respondent by her previous superiors and had the discretion to
give the rating that he believed she deserved.
We do not find credence in
respondent’s assertion that petitioners were merely “magnifying” her errors and
were motivated by ill-will or prejudice in filing the Complaint against her. As the Office of the 1st Vice
Executive Judge of the
Quite apart from the poor
quality of her work, respondent admits that she has not been able to faithfully
follow the twenty-day period for completion and submission of the
This Court has repeatedly ruled that failure to
submit TSNs within the period prescribed under Administrative Circular No.
24-90 constitutes gross neglect of duty.[19]
As a stenographer, respondent should
bear in mind that “the performance of her duty is essential to the prompt and
proper administration of justice, and her inaction hampers the administration
of justice and erodes public faith in the judiciary.”[20]
In her defense, respondent cites the certification
issued by petitioner Atty. Llamasares on January 6 and
We
likewise find merit in the charge of loafing, which is defined under the Civil
Service Rules as “frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular hours”[21]
and, in the case at bar, is closely connected with the charge of dishonesty, as
presented in sufficient and painstaking detail by petitioners. Petitioners presented the Logbook of Permission
Slips that reflected the numerous times that respondent was out of the office
during work hours for the period August 27, 2003 to March 28, 2005.
The
same documents, among others, showed that she went out of the office on July 9,
September 28, October 25, and December 14, 2004, February 11 & 14, and March
2 & 28, 2005, purportedly to go to this Court. However, an inquiry made by petitioners with
the SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division, revealed that
respondent’s name did not appear in the Logbook of the Court on these dates. We are unconvinced by respondent’s explanation
that her name was not reflected in the Court’s Logbook because she usually
entered through the CA where she would be accompanied to this Court by her kumare, a CA employee, thereby excusing
respondent from registering with the Court’s security personnel. The Court’s security personnel maintain a
strict policy of inspecting outsiders going into its premises, which respondent
could not have escaped. In fact, such an
explanation would only compound her predicament as she did not disclose such
fact in her permission slips and, if true, she would then likewise be admitting
to flouting the security policies of this Court. An inference of loafing on the part of her kumare can also be logically deduced
from respondent’s explanation.
Moreover,
petitioners pointed out that in some instances respondent did not even state in
the Logbook of Permission Slips her purpose for leaving the office during
regular hours. She also entered false
information in the Logbook of Daily Attendance of Court Personnel as can be
gleaned from the substantial discrepancies between respondent’s Logbook entries
and those noted by the Officer-In-Charge as to respondent’s time of arrival in
the office on November 12 & 19, 2003, December 28, 2004, and March 8, 2005,
which cannot be deemed as inconsequential as respondent sees them.
It must
be stressed that all judicial employees must devote their official time to
government service. They must exercise
at all times a high degree of professionalism and responsibility, as service in
the judiciary is not only a duty; it is a mission.[22] To inspire public respect for the justice
system, court officials and employees are at all times behooved to strictly
observe official time.[23]
Strict observance of official
time is mandatory lest the dignity of the justice system be compromised.[24] Thus, Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel mandates that the same shall commit themselves
exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working
hours.[25]
In the
case at bar, we find that respondent has failed to live up to the standard of
efficiency and professionalism that the judiciary demands from its court
personnel. Furthermore, by writing false
and inaccurate entries in her former office’s Logbook of Permission Slips and
Logbook of Daily Attendance of Court Personnel, respondent likewise failed to
meet the standard of honesty.
In the
Complaint, respondent is also accused of delayed filing of her application for
sick leave on
Having determined the
liabilities of respondent, we come now to the imposition of the appropriate
penalty for her acts.
It
is on record that petitioner Judge Marquez had given respondent two (2)
consecutive “Unsatisfactory” performance ratings in 2004. Under OCA Circular
No. 37-2002, quoting Section 2.2(a), Rule XII of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40
(s.1998):
An official or employee who is given two (2) consecutive
UNSATISFACTORY ratings may be dropped from the rolls after due notice. Notice shall mean that
the officer or employee concerned is informed in writing of his/her
unsatisfactory performance for a semester and is sufficiently warned that a
succeeding unsatisfactory performance shall warrant his separation from the
service. Such notice shall be given not later than 30 days from the end of the
semester and shall contain sufficient information which shall enable the
employee to prepare an explanation. (Italics supplied)
Furthermore, Section 5, Rule IX, Book
V of Executive Order No. 292, provides that “an employee who expresses
dissatisfaction with the rating given him may appeal through the established
Grievance Procedure of the Department or Agency within fifteen (15) days after
receipt of his copy of his performance rating.”
In its Report, the OCA appears to have
refrained from recommending the highest penalty of dismissal considering that
respondent’s Protest of her performance ratings for 2004 was still pending. It is undisputed that respondent has already availed
of the grievance procedure prescribed and was undoubtedly provided with due
process and consideration albeit with an undesired result, since respondent’s Protest
was dismissed.
In this regard, the law on the matter gives us
the option of meting out the penalty of dismissal on the respondent. In fact, in the past, this Court has dropped
from the rolls a stenographer who was likewise given two (2) consecutive “Unsatisfactory”
ratings by her superior for delay in transcribing stenographic notes and her
failure to transcribe notes properly.[27]
However, this Court, in other cases, has mitigated
the imposable penalty for humanitarian reasons. In such cases, we also considered length of
service in the judiciary; the respondent’s acknowledgement of his/her
infractions and feelings of remorse; and family circumstances, among others, in
determining the proper penalty. We have
also ruled that where the penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever
missteps may be committed by labor ought not be visited with a consequence so
severe. It is not only because of the
law’s concern for the workingman. There
is, in addition, his family to consider. Unemployment brings untold hardships
and sorrows on those dependent on wage-earner.[28]
In the present case, apart from
respondent’s long service in the government (since 1975), it appears on record
that she was given a “Very Satisfactory” rating by Judge Antonio M. Eugenio,
Jr., to whose court she was transferred after her stint in Judge Marquez’s
court.[29]
We are inclined to give respondent the
benefit of the doubt and construe her subsequent favorable performance rating
as an indication of improvement in the discharge of her duties.
Having said the foregoing, we are accepting the
OCA’s recommendation of imposing a penalty of one (1) year suspension without
pay on respondent for inefficiency/neglect of duty, loafing and making
false/inaccurate entries in the office Logbook.
On a final note, the Court sternly reminds
respondent that her long years in public service should not be used as a
justification for laxity nor a cover for mediocrity but rather the same entails
the expectation that she will continually adhere to the highest standards of
professionalism, integrity and efficiency in the discharge of her official
duties.
WHEREFORE,
we find that Ms. Lucila C. Pacariem is guilty of inefficiency/neglect of duty,
loafing and making false/inaccurate entries in the office Logbook for which we
impose the penalty of SUSPENSION FROM
SERVICE for a period of ONE (1) YEAR
without pay, with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar acts
will warrant a more severe penalty.
The other charges in the Complaint are
dismissed for lack of merit.
SO
ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice