|
RE: ORDER DATED 21 DECEMBER 2006 ISSUED BY JUDGE BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LAS PIÑAS CITY, BRANCH 275, SUSPENDING LOIDA M. GENABE,
LEGAL RESEARCHER, SAME COURT. x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x JUDGE BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, LAS PIÑAS CITY, BRANCH 275, Complainant, - versus - LOIDA
M. GENABE, LEGAL RESEARCHER, SAME COURT. Respondent. |
A.M. No. 07-2-93-RTC A.M. No. P-07-2320 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, quisumbing,* CHICO-NAZARIO, PERALTA, and ABAD,**
JJ. Promulgated: October
29, 2009 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
CARPIO, J.:
On
20 November 2006, Atty. Jonna M. Escabarte (Atty. Escabarte), Branch Clerk of
Court of the same trial court, issued an Inter-Office Memorandum to Genabe
referring to her neglect, in leaving for Baguio City on 16 to17 November 2006
to attend a seminar for legal researchers, without finishing her assigned
task. The assigned task required Genabe
to summarize the statement of facts in Criminal Case Nos. 03-0059 to 03-0063
entitled “People of the Philippines v. Marvilla, et al.,” set for promulgation
on 21 November 2006. Atty. Escabarte
reminded Genabe that such act could not be tolerated and that similar acts in
the future would be meted an appropriate sanction.
On
22 November 2006, Genabe submitted her explanation regarding the unfinished
assigned case. She stated that she was
not able to complete the summary due to lack of transcript of stenographic
notes (TSN). Genabe added that she be
absolved for humane considerations.
On
29 November 2006, Judge Maceda called a staff meeting to discuss several
matters in the agenda, including the inter-office memorandum. Allegedly, even before the staff meeting,
Genabe resented the issuance of the memorandum and became disrespectful to the
court staff, including the clerk of court.
At the meeting, Genabe allegedly continued her combative behavior in
total disregard of the presence of Judge Maceda.
On
30 November 2006, Judge Maceda ordered Genabe to show cause why she should not
be cited in contempt by the court and why she should not be administratively sanctioned
for conduct unbecoming, neglect of duty and misconduct.
In
her Answer dated 11 December 2006, Genabe denied that she neglected her duty
and explained with counter-charges.
Genabe stated that Atty.
Escabarte did not give her the opportunity to be heard and that she was not
given sufficient lead time to finish the five consolidated informations of the
criminal case assigned to her. Genabe attributed the lack of stenographers,
which was beyond her control, as the cause of the delay in the transcriptions
of the minutes of the meeting. As a
counter-charge, Genabe claimed that Judge Maceda disciplines his staff on a
selective basis.
On
the same day, Judge Maceda conducted a fact-finding investigation inside his
chambers. The agenda of the investigation
focused on the charges of contempt, conduct unbecoming, neglect of duty, and
misconduct against Genabe. Judge Maceda
directed all members of the staff, including Genabe, to attend. However, Genabe did not appear despite
notice. Later, she appeared to say that
she was waiving her right to be present in the investigation.
On
21 December 2006, Judge Maceda issued the Suspension Order against Genabe for
neglect of duty.
In
a Letter dated 22 December 2006, Judge Maceda furnished the Office of the Court
of Administrator (OCA) with a copy of the Order dated 21 December 2006. Judge Maceda suspended Genabe for a period of
30 days, using as authority the power given to appropriate supervisory
officials in disciplining personnel of their respective courts as provided in
Article II, Section A(2)(a) of Circular No. 30-91 dated 30 September 1991. Judge Maceda declared that the suspension was to take effect
immediately and would not be stayed even if appealed to the Supreme Court. Judge Maceda then requested that following
the suspension order, Genabe’s salary be withheld for the period 21 December
2006 to 20 January 2007.
The OCA received a letter
dated 12 January 2007 sent by Atty. Zandro T. Bato, Clerk of Court VI of the
same trial court, returning the salary check of Genabe following the suspension
order issued against her. On 22 January
2007, Genabe reported back to work after serving the 30-day suspension order of
Judge Maceda.
On 18 January 2007, Judge
Maceda endorsed his Investigation Report and Recommendation to the OCA, even
without any directive from the latter.
The report mainly focused on the alleged unruly conduct of Genabe during
the staff meeting of Branch 275 on 29 November 2006. Judge Maceda submitted the following
recommendations:
1. Pending determination of the instant matter
by the Honorable Supreme Court, Ms. Loida M. Genabe, Legal Researcher, RTC,
Branch 275, Las Piñas City, be immediately placed under preventive suspension,
and thereafter dismiss her from the service; and
2. Allow the undersigned to recommend a
replacement to enable RTC Branch 275 to function normally soonest.[1]
In a Letter dated 18 April
2007, several staff members of the same trial court, headed by the Branch Clerk
of Court, assailed the alleged inaction of the OCA on the Investigation Report
and Recommendation dated 18 January 2007 submitted by Judge Maceda as well as
the request for the detail of Genabe to another post.
In a Resolution dated 23 May
2007, this Court resolved to:
1.
NOTE the
letter dated 22 December 2006 of Presiding Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda x x x x;
2.
TREAT
the Order dated 21 December 2006 issued by Judge Bonifacio [Sanz] Maceda as an
administrative complaint against Loida M. Genabe under a separate docket
number, A.M. No. P-07-2320 x x x x;
3.
DIRECT
Ms. Loida M. Genabe to REPORT BACK TO WORK pending resolution of the
administrative complaint against her, unless another administrative case
directs otherwise; and
4.
REQUIRE
Judge Bonifacio [Sanz] Maceda to EXPLAIN, within ten (10) days from notice, why
no disciplinary sanction should be imposed against him for having violated A.M.
No. 03-8-02-SC entitled “Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of
Executive Judges and Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties” approved
on 27 January 2004 and became effective on 15 February 2004.[2]
Judge Maceda submitted his
Explanation dated 29 June 2007, in compliance with the Court’s Resolution dated
23 May 2007. Judge Maceda reasoned that
there were other charges against Genabe, such as “conduct unbecoming and grave
misconduct,” which called for the imposition of a higher penalty. Thus, he endorsed the determination of such
other charges to the OCA, including whether the heavier penalty of dismissal or
replacement might be warranted. Judge
Maceda prayed that his explanation be considered as sufficient compliance and
that he be absolved of any disciplinary sanction.
On 22 August 2007, the Court
resolved to refer to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation the (1)
Order dated 21 December 2006 and (2) Explanation dated 29 June 2007, both made
by Judge Maceda.
On 29 August 2007, the Court resolved to inform the staff
members of the same trial court, in consideration of the Letter dated 18 April
2007, that until Genabe has been formally charged with “contempt, conduct
unbecoming and misconduct,” which are not light offenses, the propriety of
suspending Genabe pending investigation of the charges against her cannot be
properly evaluated, and to await the outcome of A.M. No. P-07-2320.
On 19 November 2007, the
staff members of the same trial court, headed by the Branch Clerk of Court,
filed their Manifestation dated 15 October 2007, that Genabe had been formally
charged with “contempt, conduct unbecoming and misconduct” as contained in the
Investigation Report and Recommendation dated 18 January 2007 submitted by
Judge Maceda to this Court.
In a Resolution dated 16
January 2008, the Court resolved to require the parties to manifest their
willingness to submit the matter for decision on the basis of the pleadings
filed. Judge Maceda and Genabe
respectively filed their compliance on separate dates.
In
a Resolution dated 4 June 2008, the Court resolved to:
1.
APPROVE
the previous recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, as
contained in its Agenda Report dated 24 January 2007 particularly items no. 5
and 6. Accordingly, (a) the Financial
Management Office is DIRECTED to pay the salary of Ms. Loida M. Genabe pending
resolution of the administrative case against her by the Court; and (b) the
Office of the Administrative Services-Leave Division is DIRECTED not to deduct
the number of absences incurred by Ms. Genabe from her leave credits since the
order of suspension is unauthorized; and
2.
GRANT
the application of Ms. Loida M. Genabe for leave for a period of five (5)
months starting 1 May to 30 September 2008 for purposes of taking the bar
examination, this, however, is without prejudice to the action that the
Committee of the Education Support Program may take on her application.[3]
The OCA’s Report and Recommendation
In
its Report dated 23 October 2007, the OCA found Judge Maceda’s explanation
unsatisfactory. The OCA stated that
Circular No. 30-91 had been impliedly amended by the Guidelines on the
Selection and Appointment of Executive Judges and Defining their Powers,
Prerogatives and Duties as contained in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, which became
effective on 15 February 2004. The OCA
added that it was clear from the Guidelines that Judge Maceda had no authority
to directly penalize a court employee. As an Executive Judge, he only had the
right to act upon and investigate administrative complaints involving light
offenses. The power to decide and impose
a penalty, even for light offenses, rests with the Supreme Court. Thus, the OCA
recommended that Judge Maceda be fined P12,000 payable immediately and
be sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future
would merit a severe penalty.
The Court’s Ruling
After
a careful review of the records of the case, we find reasonable grounds to hold
both Genabe and Judge Maceda administratively liable.
In
A.M. No. P-07-2320, we find Genabe guilty for simple neglect of duty. Simple neglect of
duty has been defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to a task
expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness
or indifference.[4]
Genabe had been permitted to attend a two-day seminar in
Baguio City on the premise that no work would be left pending. She was assigned to summarize the testimonies
of three defense witnesses for a criminal case set for promulgation. The records reveal that Genabe was only able
to summarize the TSN of one witness consisting of 46 pages and failed to finish
the TSN of the other two witnesses consisting of 67 pages. Before leaving for Baguio, Genabe had three
working days to complete the task.
However, the assignment remained unfinished. When such task was assigned to another court
employee, it only took the other employee two and a half hours to complete the
TSN of the two witnesses.
Further, Judge Maceda stated that this was not the only
time Genabe had been remiss in her duties.
In Criminal Case No. 98-926 entitled “People of the Philippines v.
Russel Javier, et al.,” Genabe failed to include in the statement of facts the
detail on the prosecutor’s waiver of the cross examination and more
importantly, neglected to include the testimony of the accused Russel Javier
upon completing his testimony. Also, in
Criminal Case Nos. 02-0713 and 02-0714, entitled “People of the Philippines v.
Alberto Ylanan,” Genabe included the testimony of an alleged poseur when his
testimony, upon motion, had been stricken off the record per Order dated 29
July 2003.
From these instances, we find that Genabe’s actuations
constitute simple neglect of duty. As a
first offense under civil service law, we impose the penalty of suspension
without pay for a period of one month and one day.[5] The suspension imposed upon Genabe under the
Order dated 21 December 2006 shall be considered as the penalty imposed. The remaining balance of one day suspension
must be served upon finality of this decision.
With regard to the other charges of contempt, conduct
unbecoming and misconduct, we find no sufficient basis to hold Genabe accountable
for these offenses based on her alleged unruly conduct at the staff meeting
held on 29 November 2006. In
administrative proceedings, the burden is on the complainant to prove by
substantial evidence the allegations in his
complaint.[6] Substantial evidence is that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion. The standard was not met in
this case. The Order dated 21 December
2006 and Investigation Report dated 18 January 2007 submitted by Judge Maceda
centered mainly on Genabe’s neglect of duty in not completing her assigned task
on time. The other charges had been
touched on in a sporadic manner. While
the law does not tolerate misconduct by a civil servant, suspension,
replacement or dismissal must not be resorted to unless there is substantial
evidence to merit such penalties. In the
absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, Genabe cannot be held
accountable for the other charges against her.
In
A.M. No. 07-2-93-RTC, we find that Judge Maceda failed to observe due process
in ordering the suspension of Genabe and withholding her salary from 21
December 2006 to 20 January 2007.
Judge
Maceda suspended a court personnel directly under his supervision by relying on
the authority laid down in Article II, Section A(2)(a) of Circular No. 30-91
which provides:
2. Lower Court
Personnel
a. Light Offenses –
(1) Disciplinary matters involving
light offenses as defined under the Civil Service law (Administrative Code of
1987 and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees (Rep. Act. 6713) where the penalty is reprimand, suspension for not
more than thirty days, or a fine not exceeding thirty days' salary, and as
classified in Civil Service Resolution No. 30, Series of 1989, shall be acted
upon by the appropriate supervisory official of the lower court concerned.
(2) The appropriate supervisory
officials are the Presiding Justices/Presiding Judge of the lower collegiate
courts and the Executive Judges of the trial courts with respect to the
personnel of their respective courts, except those directly under the
individual Justices and Judges, in which case, the latter shall be their
appropriate supervisory officials.
(3)
The complaint for light offenses whether filed with the Court, the Office of
the Court Administrator, or the lower court shall be heard and decided by the
appropriate supervisory official concerned. x x x
The reliance of Judge Maceda on the
provisions of this circular is misplaced.
Judge Maceda found Genabe to have neglected her duty in November
2006. The guidelines in effect at that
time were already those found in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, which took effect in 2004 or two years
before the administrative charge of neglect of duty was made against
Genabe. Judge Maceda should have applied
these new guidelines and not Circular No. 30-91.
Section
1, Chapter VIII of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, which provides the guidelines for
administrative discipline of court employees over light offenses, states:
SECTION. 1. Disciplinary jurisdiction over light offenses.– The Executive Judge shall have authority to act upon and investigate administrative complaints involving light offenses as defined under the Civil Service Law and Rules (Administrative Code of 1987), and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713), where the penalty is reprimand, suspension for not more than thirty (30) days, or a fine not exceeding thirty (30) days’ salary, and as classified in pertinent Civil Service resolutions or issuances, filed by (a) a judge against a court employee, except lawyers, who both work in the same station within the Executive Judge’s area of administrative supervision; or (b) a court employee against another court employee, except lawyers, who both work in the same station within the Executive Judge’s area of administrative supervision.
In the preceding instances, the Executive Judge shall conduct the necessary inquiry and submit to the Office of the Court Administrator the results thereof with a recommendation as to the action to be taken thereon, including the penalty to be imposed, if any, within thirty (30) days from termination of said inquiry. At his/her discretion, the Executive Judge may delegate the investigation of complaints involving light offenses to any of the Presiding Judges or court officials within his/her area of administrative supervision.
The
guidelines clearly provide that the authority of judges to discipline erring
court personnel, under their supervision and charged with light offenses, is
limited to conducting an inquiry only.
After such inquiry, the executive judge is required to submit to the OCA
the results of the investigation and give a recommendation as to what action
should be taken. An executive judge does not have the authority to act upon the
results of the inquiry and thereafter, if the court employee is found guilty,
unilaterally impose a penalty, as in this case.
It is only the Supreme Court which has the power to find the court
personnel guilty or not for the offense charged and then impose a penalty.
b.
Grave or Less Grave Offenses
All
administrative complaints for grave or less grave offenses as defined in the
Codes hereinbefore referred to shall be immediately referred to the Court En
Banc for appropriate action within 15 days from receipt by the Court
Administrator if filed directly with him, otherwise, within 15 days likewise
from receipt by him from the appropriate supervisory officials concerned.
Thus, under Circular No. 30-91, a court employee charged with
a less grave offense could not be directly penalized by an executive
judge. Judge Maceda had no authority to
suspend Genabe outright for a less grave offense of simple neglect of duty even
under Circular No. 30-91. Clearly, Judge Maceda exceeded his authority when he
issued the 21 December 2006 suspension order against Genabe.
Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides that a
violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars constitutes a less
serious charge in the discipline of judges of regular courts:
Sec. 9. Less Serious Charges. –
x x x x
4. Violation of Supreme Court
rules, directives, and circulars;
x x x x
Accordingly,
Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides the sanctions to be imposed
if one is found to be guilty of a less serious charge:
Sec. 11. Sanctions. –
x x x x
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less
serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1.
Suspension
from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor
more than three (3) months; or
2.
A fine
of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
x x x x
We
hold that the penalty of fine in the amount of P12,000 is commensurate
to Judge Maceda’s violation of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC. We sternly warn him that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
WHEREFORE,
in A.M. No. P-07-2320, we find Loida M. Genabe, Legal Researcher II of the
Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 275, GUILTY of simple
neglect of duty. We SUSPEND her
for one month and one day without pay.
The 30-day suspension imposed upon Loida M. Genabe under the Order dated
21 December 2006 issued by Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda shall be considered as a
partial service of the penalty imposed.
The remaining balance of the penalty of one day suspension shall be
immediately served upon finality of this decision. Respondent Loida M. Genabe is sternly warned
that commission of similar acts in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
In
A.M No. 07-2-93-RTC, we find Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda of the Regional Trial
Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 275, GUILTY of violation of A.M. No.
03-8-02-SC. Accordingly, we FINE
him P12,000, with a stern warning that commission of similar acts in the
future will be dealt with more severely.
SO
ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Associate Justice
* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 755.
** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 753.
[1] Rollo (A.M. No. 07-2-93-RTC), p. 73.
[2] Id. at 373.
[3] Id. at 569.
[4] OCA v. Montalla, A.M. No. P-06-2269, 20 December 2006, 511 SCRA 328, citing Inting v. Borja, A.M. No. P-03-1707, 27 July 2004, 435 SCRA 269.
[5] Under
Rule IV, Section 52(B) of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999, or
the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple
neglect of duty is a less grave offense which carries a penalty of one month
and one day to six months suspension for the first offense.
[6] Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, G.R. No. 154521, 30 September 2005, 471 SCRA 589.
[7] CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999, made effective on 14 September 1999.
Section 52. Classification of Offenses. – Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
x x x x
B. The following are less grave offenses with the corresponding penalties:
1. Simple Neglect of Duty
1st Offense – Suspension 1 mo. 1 day to 6 mos.
2nd Offense – Dismissal
x x x x
[8] Rosales v. Buenaventura, A.M. No. 2004-15-SC, 16 November 2006, 507 SCRA 14.
[9] Aguirre v. Baltazar, A.M. No. P-05-1957, 7 February 2005, 450 SCRA 518; Exec. Judge Ulat-Marrero v. Torio, Jr., 461 Phil. 654 (2003).