SECOND DIVISION
|
JUDGE JAIME L. DOJILLO,
JR. , Complainant, - versus - CONCEPCION Z.
CHING, Clerk of Court, MTC, Manaoag, Pangasinan, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -x CONCEPCION A. CHING, Complainant, -versus- JUDGE JAIME L. DOJILLO, JR., MTC, Manaoag,
Pangasinan, Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-06-2245 [Formerly OCA IPI NO.
06-2373-P] Present: QUISUMBING,
J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, CHICO-NAZARIO,* LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,** and PERALTA,***
JJ. A.M.
No. MTJ-09-1741 [Formerly
OCA IPI No. 06-1853-MTJ] Promulgated: July
31, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
By letter-complaint[1]
of January 18, 2006, Judge Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr., (Judge Dojillo), presiding judge
of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Manaoag, Pangasinan, charged Concepcion
Z.[2]
Ching (Concepcion), MTC Clerk of Court, with gross misconduct, gross
incompetence and inefficiency, violation of the Supreme Court Circular which
prohibits smoking inside the office, violation of the Code of Ethics, conduct
unbecoming of a public official, conduct prejudicial to the interest of public
service, and gross dishonesty.
By 1st Indorsement[3]
of February 2, 2006, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Concepcion
to comment on the letter-complaint within 10 days from notice, with which she complied
by Comment[4]
of
Both complaints were
referred to Executive Judge Rodrigo Nabor of the
By Resolution of
By Memorandum of
A. GROSS MISCONDUCT
Complainant judge alleged that
respondent Ching is a lesbian who is a well-known gossiper and troublemaker in
the town of
Pangasinan. Even her officemates were not spared of her daily food of venomous gossiping.
Sometime in the year 1999, respondent gossiped that Ramon Paster, Court Stenographer, has an illicit relationship with Mrs. Erlinda L. Marmolejo, the Court Interpreter. Subsequently, respondent allegedly passed malicious information that the complainant judge and Mrs. Marmolejo had an ongoing illicit affair.
On
B. GROSS INCOMPETENCE AND INEFFICIENCY
Complainant judge averred that respondent was not personally doing most of her assigned tasks. She always passed the job to other members of the staff even if she was not doing anything. Further, she was always out of the office. She also refused to learn to type well and to use the computer issued to the court. These resulted in the delay in the preparation and issuance of writs of execution ordered by the court.
C.
VIOLATION OF THE SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR BANNING
SMOKING
Respondent Ching, according to the complainant, is a well known chain smoker. She smoked inside the office to the detriment of the health of her officemates.
D. CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL AND CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE SERVICE.
Aside from being a well known gossiper and troublemaker, it was also alleged that respondent was a bad-tempered, impatient, disrespectful and discourteous public employee. Instead of devoting the office hours for work, she was frequently seen loitering, wasting time and parading downstairs as if she is the boss, creating an impression to the public that she could do whatever she wants and pleases and thereby eroding the trust and confidence of the people in the judiciary.
E. VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ETHICAL STANDARDS
With her malicious motive in mind,
she intimidated and harassed Mrs. Erlinda Marmolejo by uttering unsavory and
uncalled remarks in order to force the latter to transfer or to resign from
work. Certification of
entries of incidents in the police blotter were attached to the complaint to prove that respondent indeed annoyed and harassed Marmolejo.
F. GROSS DISHONESTY
Respondent Ching was also charged
for falsifying her Daily Time Record for the month of November 2003 to make it
appear that she was present in the office on
The OCA summarized
x x x She denied the accusations hurled against her. She averred that it has been a long time time [sic] since she heard feedbacks relative to the unusual closeness of Judge Dojillo and Mrs. Marmolejo. She, herself, has witnessed their closeness. She stated that sometime on May 27, 2005, she saw Mrs. Marmolejo came out of the chambers of the complainant looking like she just woke up from sleep. To her shock, Judge Dojillo was also inside the chambers. Thus, she talked to Marmolejo in order to silence the increasing discomfort of the people around them. Marmolejo, however, denied her suspicions. Instead of distancing from one another, Judge Dojillo and Marmolejo were oftentimes seen arriving and leaving the office together. She further advised Marmolejo that if the latter could not stop what was going on between her and the judge, Marmolejo should save herself from destruction by going abroad.
She further averred that sometime in December of 2005, at around 8 in the morning, she went early in the office. She thought that she was all alone but to her surprise, she saw Marmolejo come out of the chambers of the complainant. When she peeked inside the chambers, Judge Dojillo was also there. She thus sternly warned Marmolejo to avoid incidents that would make their colleagues uncomfortable otherwise she will be forced to make the necessary action against her and the judge.
As to the charge of gross
misconduct, she argued that she was a very warm person with strong convictions
for propriety and decorum in office. She averred that she made the court
accessible to people by immediately entertaining their concerns and advising
them of the procedures in court. She also denied being a rumor monger and
claimed that all the accusations of the witnesses for the complainant were
fabrications in order to malign her person. She, moreover, denied having banged
the door on
Anent the charge of gross incompetence and inefficiency, she stated that as a clerk of court, her duties were administrative and supervisory. She made sure that all the cases were on file and calendared and that all the pleadings were referred to the complainant for proper action. These delicate tasks were performed by her and it was only the typing job that she delegates. She justified this by saying that it was necessary for her to delegate the typing to others who are faster than her.
As to the allegation that she was
always out of the office, her defense was that the nature of her job requires
her to leave the office. These include the monthly submission of reports to
With respect to her alleged
violation of the circular regarding smoking ban, she claimed that she is not a
chain smoker and she was not the only one smoking among the court employees.
She thus could not fathom why she was singled out by complainant. As to the
charge of dishonesty, she stood by her claim as to the truthfulness of her
Daily Time Record. The reason why her application for leave on
The OCA, passing on the Manifestation and Motion of the parties for the
dismissal of their respective charges, states that “the withdrawal of an
administrative complaint or subsequent desistance of the complainant does not
free the respondent from liability as the purpose of an administrative
proceeding is to protect the public service, based on the time-honored
principle that a public office i[s] a public trust.”
The OCA goes
on to state:
The withdrawal of the complaint or the
execution of an affidavit of desistance does not automatically result in the
dismissal of the administrative case. x x x It will not divest the Supreme
Court of its jurisdiction to investigate the matters alleged in the complaint.
Thus, the manifestation and motion filed by the parties praying that the charges
and counter-charges be dismissed should be denied.
Evaluating the charges and counter charges, the OCA reports as follows:
Anent the complaint against Judge
Dojillo, it bears stressing that in administrative cases, the burden devolves
upon the complainant for him to prove by substantial evidence the allegations
in the complaint. In the instant case, records are bereft of any evidence which
would render Judge Dojillo guilty of immorality. Complainant Ching miserably
failed to present any substantial evidence which will prove that Judge Dojillo
is having an illicit affair with Ms. Marmolejo. It was also revealed that
it was not only Ms. Marmolejo who enters the chambers of the judge. Even
granting that it was only Ms. Marmolejo who enters the chambers of the judge,
the same is purely due to work-related reasons since the computer is inside his
chambers. It would thus be hasty to conclude that they were having an illicit
affair. Moreover, the allegation that Ms. Marmolejo and Judge Dojillo were unusually
early in the office deserves scant consideration. It was complainant Ching,
herself, who admitted that she saw Marmolejo and Judge Dojillo at around
Anent the complaint against Ching,
the latter should be penalized for her acts. Misconduct is defined as any
unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the administration of
justice prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination
of the cause. It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct
motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. Her actuations
in maliciously accusing her officemate of having an illicit affair with Judge
Dojillo should not be countenanced especially in the instant case where it
appears that the accusations made by her are baseless and unfounded. What is
more alarming is the fact that she falsified the entries in her DTR in
making it appear that December 12, 2005 was a local holiday when in fact it was
not. Her claim that the aforesaid date was a local holiday was not
corroborated by any other evidence. In fact, her co-employees attested to the
fact that such day was a regular working day. In making it appear in her DTR
that such day was a holiday only highlights her dishonesty x x x.
x x x x
There is no denying that respondent Ching committed misrepresentation when she made it appear in her DTR that she was present in the office while in fact she was not. Falsification of DTR is patent dishonesty. 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. Indeed, dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the Judiciary. x x x
x x x x
Rule IV, Section 52 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service Commission provides that dishonesty and falsification are grave offenses which carries with it the penalty of dismissal even on the first offense. However, such an extreme penalty is not hastily inflicted upon an erring employee especially in cases where there exist mitigating circumstances that could alleviate the culpability. Inasmuch as this is respondent Ching’s first offense, it is considered a mitigating circumstance in h[er] favor. Even if the law specifically states that the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance must first be invoked or pleaded by the proper party, the same may be considered even if not raised by the respondent in the interest of substantial justice.
In Re: Failure of Jose Dante E. Guerrero to Register His Time In and Out in Chronolog Time Recorder Machine on Several Dates, the Court imposed the penalty of six months suspension to an employee found guilty of dishonesty for falsifying his time records.[11] (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
Thus, the OCA recommends that
x x x respondent Concepcion Ching,
Clerk of Court, MTC, Manaoag, Pangasinan, be found guilty of falsification
and dishonesty and be SUSPE
x x x the counter-charge against Judge Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr., MTC, Manaoag, Pangasinan x x x be DISMISSED for being barren of merit.[12] (Capitalization and emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)
By Resolution of
In her Affidavit, Jenelyn Sernadilla
(Jenelyn) of the Office of the Human Resource Management of Manaoag, Pangasinan
stated that
Between the two affidavits, that of
Jenelyn’s appears to be more credible, she being the officer in charge of the
attendance of the employees. As Judge Dojillo pointed out, Mangonon, being a
consultant, was not required to report to office daily as he, in fact, only reports
during paydays. Parenthetically,
Dishonesty is a serious
offense which has no place in the judiciary.[17]
Each false entry in the DTR constitutes falsification and dishonesty.[18]
The falsification of a DTR constitutes fraud involving government funds. It
bears stressing that the DTR is used to determine the salary and leave credits
accruable for the period covered thereby.
Falsifying one’s DTR to cover up absences or tardiness automatically
results in financial losses to the government because it enables an employee to
receive salary and earn leave credits for services which were never rendered.[19]
Under the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty and falsification of
official document are punishable with dismissal even for the first offense.[20]
However, the Court, in certain instances, has not imposed the penalty of
dismissal due to the presence of mitigating factors such as the length of
service, acknowledgment of the infractions, and remorse by the respondent.[21]
Considering that this is
the first administrative charge against
In the case of Judge Dojillo, he should
be admonished to be more circumspect in his choice of words and use of gender-fair
language.[22] There was no reason for
him to emphatically describe
Being called to dispense justice, Judge
Dojillo must demonstrate finesse in his choice of words as normally expected of
men of his stature.[27] His
language, both written and spoken, must be guarded and measured lest the best
of intentions be misconstrued.[28]
WHEREFORE, Concepcion Ching, Clerk of Court of
the Municipal Trial Court of Manaoag, Pangasinan, is found GUILTY of dishonesty and falsification
of official document, and is SUSPE
The complaint against Judge Jaime L.
Dojillo, Jr. is DISMISSED, but he is
ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in his choice of words and use of gender-fair
language.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
* Additional member per Special Order No. 658.
** Additional member per Special Order No. 635.
*** Additional member per Special Order No. 664.
[1] Rollo, A.M. No. P-06-2245, pp. 2-6.
[2] Sometimes “A” in the records.
[3] Rollo, A.M. No. P-06-2245, p. 50.
[4]
[5]
[6] Rollo, A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-1853-MTJ, p. 51.
[7]
[9]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Affidavit of Jenelyn Sernadilla, rollo, A.M. No. P-06-2245, p. 134.
[16]
[17] De Vera v. Rimas, A.M. No. P-06-2118,
[18] Report on the Attendance in
Office of Mr. Glenn B. Hufalar, MTCC,
[19] Flores v. Hon. Layosa, 479 Phil. 1020, 1038 (2004).
[20] Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 99-1936 (August 31, 1999), Rule IV, Section 52 (A) (1) & (6).
[21] Re: Administrative Case for
Falsification of Official Documents and Dishonesty against Randy S. Villanueva,
A.M. No. 2005-24-SC, August 10, 2007, 529 SCRA 679, 687; Servino v. Adolfo, A.M. No. P-06-2204,
[22] Vide
A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC (
[23] Vide Judge Dojillo’s letter-complaint, rollo, A.M. No. P-06-2245, p. 2, where he placed emphasis on the word “lesbian.”
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] Vide Negros Grace Pharmacy, Inc. v. Judge Hilario, 461 Phil. 843, 851-852 (2003).
[28] De la Cruz v. Judge Bersamira, 402 Phil. 671, 678 (2001).