Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
Executive Judge AURORA MAQUEDA ROMAN,
Regional Trial Court, Gumaca, Quezon,
Complainant, -
versus - VIRGILIO M. FORTALEZA, Clerk of Court,
Municipal Trial Court, Catanauan, Quezon,
Respondent. |
A.M. No.
P-10-2865 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3044-P)
Present: CARPIO
MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: November 22, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
BRION, J.:
This administrative case arose from a
letter-complaint, dated May 24, 2007, by one who wanted to keep her identity
confidential, addressed to former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, informing him
of the alleged irregularities happening at the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Catanauan, Quezon. For purposes of this Decision, the
letter-sender shall be referred to as the “informant.”
The letter-complaint reported that respondent
Clerk of Court Virgilio M. Fortaleza is the husband of stenographer Norberta
Fortaleza and the brother-in-law of process server Gavino Otico Ramos. All three work at the MTC. On the basis of
these relations, Norberta and Gavino got performance ratings higher than those
given to the other MTC employees. The informant
further claimed that the respondent made her sign blank performance evaluation
forms without telling her what rating she would get, and added that she was not
evaluated for the period July to December 2006. She likewise reported that the
respondent is fond of attending cockfights during office hours, and allows Norberta
to sign his daily time record during his absence. She also charged the
respondent and his wife of using abusive words in addressing her in the
presence of other people. Despite these
specific charges, the informant still requested that her identity be kept
confidential.
The Office of the Chief Justice
referred the letter-complaint to then Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock
for discreet investigation. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its letter of September 20, 2007,
informed the informant that her allegations regarding the abusive conduct of
the respondent and his wife, as well as the irregularities in the filling up of
her performance evaluation sheet, cannot prosper without the disclosure of her
identity. The OCA explained that the informant’s
testimony was needed to substantiate these charges. The OCA, nevertheless, stated
that the informant’s other charges, such as attending cockfights during office
hours and tampering of attendance record, may be referred to Executive Judge
Aurora V. Maqueda-Roman of the Regional Trial Court, Gumaca, Quezon, for
investigation. Accordingly, the OCA referred the letter-complaint to Judge Maqueda-Roman
for the conduct of a discreet investigation.
In her Report and Recommendation
dated January 2, 2008, Judge Maqueda-Roman found merit in the allegation that
the respondent had been “loafing on his job” and recommended that he be meted a
P3,000.00 fine, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will be dealt with more severely. Judge Maqueda-Roman dismissed the other
charges against the respondent for lack of basis.
The Report and Recommendation of
Judge Maqueda-Roman reads in part:
x x x x
After careful consideration of the testimonies of Virgilio Fortaleza and his co-employees including his wife at MTC Catanauan as well as the other employees at [DAR], Catanauan, Quezon and a policeman at MPS, Catanauan, Quezon, [the] undersigned Executive Judge of RTC, Gumaca, Quezon is inclined to believe that indeed Virgilio Fortaleza has been loafing in office. Even his wife, Norberta Fortaleza stated that once in a while, her husband, Virgilio Fortaleza leaves office, sometimes for half an hour and stays at the police station to smoke to while away his sleepy feeling. Other employees testified that at times[,] Virgilio left office and stayed out for less than an hour or for an hour or for two (2) or three (3) hours for two (2) or three (3) days a week. In this light[,] his co-employees differ in their estimate as to the duration of his stay out of office during office hours. Where Virgilio Fortaleza went out and stayed out of office has not been clearly established, it was not shown that he stayed out of office to attend cockfight[s]. No one of the witnesses disclosed and confirmed that he went out of office and attended cockfights during office hours.[1]
In our Resolution dated February 11,
2009, the Court resolved to: (1) treat Judge Maqueda-Roman’s Report and
Recommendation as a complaint against the respondent and (2) require the
respondent to submit his comment on the complaint. Thus, Judge Maqueda-Roman was made the
nominal complainant.
The respondent, in his comment,
admitted going to cockfights during Saturdays and Sundays, but denied doing so
during office hours. He likewise admitted going out of his office either to
smoke, read newspapers in the library, or communicate with the police on legal
matters.
In our Resolution of July 6, 2009, we
referred the case to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation. The
OCA, in its Memorandum dated October 26, 2009, recommended that the respondent
be held liable for loafing during office hours, and be suspended from office
without pay for six (6) months.
The OCA explained that the
testimonies of the various witnesses during the investigation, conducted by
Judge Maqueda-Roman, established that the respondent had been loafing during
office hours.
THE COURT’S RULING
After due consideration, we adopt the OCA’s findings.
Court personnel must devote every moment of official time to
public service. The conduct and behavior of court personnel should be characterized
by a high degree of professionalism and responsibility, as they mirror the
image of the court. Specifically, court
personnel must strictly observe official time to inspire public respect for the
justice system. Section 1, Canon IV[2] of
the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel mandates that court personnel shall commit themselves exclusively to the
business and responsibilities of their office during working hours. Loafing results in inefficiency and non-performance of duty,
and adversely affects the prompt delivery of justice.[3]
The
Civil Service Commission Rules define “loafing” as “frequent unauthorized
absences from duty during regular office hours.” The word “frequent” connotes
that the employees absent themselves from duty more than once.[4]
In the present case, the charge of loafing was
proven by substantial evidence. Gavino, the process server and the respondent’s
own brother-in-law, testified that there were times the respondent left the
office during office hours, although these temporary absences from office did not exceed one hour. Norberta, the
stenographer and the respondent’s wife, stated that the respondent left the
office “once in a while, sometimes for
half an hour.” Melanie Macaraig, a court interpreter, narrated that the
respondent would leave the office during office hours lasting from two to three hours a day, two to three times a week. Nilo Tabernilla, Clerk II at the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR), narrated that respondent
would go to the DAR office in the morning to chat, but explained that the DAR
office is near the MTC. While none of these
witnesses saw the respondent attend cockfights during office hours, sufficient
basis exists to conclude that the respondent had indeed been loafing during
office hours, albeit the witnesses differ in their reports on the length of
time he actually stayed out of office. The respondent himself did not deny
going out of his office during working hours, although he explained that he would
go out either to smoke, to read newspapers in the library, or to discuss legal matters with the
police.
We find the respondent’s self-serving
explanation unmeritorious. First, these
claimed activities, even if true, would not consume as much as two (2) to three
(3) hours of his time. Second, any discussions of legal matters
with the police should be upon the instructions of his judge, which the
respondent has not even claimed. Finally, the respondent should only read
newspapers and smoke during breaktime; these activities should never be done during
working hours. As we explained in Re:
Unauthorized Absences from the Post of Pearl Marie N. Icamina:[5]
Pursuant to the constitutional mandate that public office is a public trust, court personnel must observe the prescribed office hours and use this time efficiently for public service, “if only to recompense the Government, and ultimately, the people, who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary.”
Other than the matter of loafing, we agree
with the OCA that no evidence exists to support the charges against the
respondent.
Section 52(A)(17), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules or Civil
Service Commission Resolution No. 991936 classifies loafing or
frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours as a grave
offense, punishable by suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1)
year for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. Section
53(j), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules allows length of service in the government
to be considered as a mitigating circumstance in the determination of the
penalty to be imposed. We consider the
respondent’s more than 30 years of service in the Judiciary as a mitigating
circumstance and, accordingly, impose on him the minimum penalty of suspension
without pay for six (6) months, as recommended by the OCA.
The Court has
made clear that while it is its duty to sternly wield a corrective hand to
discipline its errant employees and to weed out those who are undesirable, this
Court also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with
mercy. When an officer or employee is
disciplined, the object sought is not his/her punishment, but the improvement
of the public service, and the preservation of the public's faith and
confidence in the government.[6]
WHEREFORE, in light
of all the foregoing, respondent Virgilio M. Fortaleza is hereby found GUILTY of (1) loafing under Section 52(A)(17), Rule IV of the
Uniform Rules or Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 991936; and (2)
violation of Section 1,
Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the service without pay for
a period of SIX (6) MONTHS, with the
stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will warrant a more
severe penalty.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D.
BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
|
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Associate Justice
[1] Report and Recommendation, p. 6.
[2] Section 1. Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.
[3] See Re: Unauthorized Absences from the Post of Pearl Marie N. Icamina, Legal Researcher, RTC, Branch 8, Kalibo, Aklan, A.M. No. P-062137, September 30, 2008, 567 SCRA 142, 148.
[4] See Office of the Court Administrator v. Mallare, 261 Phil. 18 (2003).
[5] Supra note 3.
[6] See Lopena v. Saloma, A.M. No. P-06-2280, January 31, 2008, 543 SCRA 228, 236.