Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
|
RE:
ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST MS. HERMOGENA F. BAYANI FOR DISHONESTY. |
A.M. No.
2007-22-SC Present: corona,
C.J., CARPIO, CARPIO-MORALES, VELASCO,
NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN, DEL
CASTILLO, ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, MENDOZA
and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated:
February 1, 2011 |
Before this Court is an Anonymous Complaint for Dishonesty against Ms.
Hermogena F. Bayani, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Leave Division, Office of
Administrative Services (OAS), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
The Anonymous complainant alleged that Bayani, during her application for
promotion to her present position as SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the
Leave Division, OAS-OCA, failed to disclose in her Personal Data Sheet (PDS)
that she was previously charged in an administrative case in 1995. It appeared
that in a Memorandum dated February 9, 1995 issued by the OAS and signed by
then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, Bayani was found remiss in the
performance of her duties and was recommended that she be admonished.
Complainant added that Bayani's previous administrative record was discovered
only during the investigation relative to A.M. No. 2007-08-SC- In Re: Fraudulent
release of retirement benefits of Jose Lantin, former Presiding Judge,
Municipal Trial Court, San Felipe, Zambales, wherein Bayani was one of the
personnel under investigation. Consequently, Bayani's failure to disclose said
information misled the Court's Selection and Promotion Board (SPB) in
evaluating her application for promotion which is tantamount to dishonesty.
On October 1, 2007, the OCA directed Bayani to submit her comment on the
instant complaint.[1]
On October 8, 2007, in her Comment/Memorandum,[2]
Bayani presumed that the instant complaint stemmed from her answers to question
nos. 25 and 27 in her PDS, which she filled up on July 27, 1999. To wit:
25. Do you have any pending a) administrative case [ ] Yes [/] No
x x x x
27. Have you ever been convicted of any administrative offense? [ ] Yes [/] No
x x x x
Bayani, however, explained that she answered “No” to question no. 25,
since the administrative case against her was already decided in 1995, and
before she accomplished her PDS in 1999. Thus, Bayani believed that she had no
more pending case at the time she accomplished her PDS.
With regard to question no. 27, wherein she again answered in the
negative, Bayani explained that it was due to her understanding that there was
no conviction on the administrative case against her, because she was merely
admonished and warned therein. She pointed out that pursuant to Section 15,
Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292,
admonition and stern warning are not considered penalties. She claimed that by
answering “no” to question no. 27, it was not her intention to gain advantage
of getting the promotion to her current position, SC Chief Judicial Staff
Officer, as she was, in fact, the most qualified candidate for the position
being the Officer-in-Charge since 1997.
Moreover, Bayani added that the
admonition was merely by virtue of a Memorandum issued by the OAS albeit signed
by then Chief Justice Narvasa. She claimed that the memorandum was not the
current A.M. Resolution issued by the Court En Banc, or through its
divisions.
Finally, Bayani averred that if her act
was indeed wrong, she, however, did not intend to defraud the government, or
prejudice anyone.
On October 10, 2007, the OCA referred
the instant case to Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Chief of Office, Office of
Administrative Services, Supreme Court, for appropriate action.[3]
On January 7, 2008, in a Memorandum,[4]
Atty. Candelaria recommended that Bayani be dismissed from service having been
found guilty of Dishonesty through falsification of official documents.
The OAS maintained that while admonition
or stern warning are not considered penalties, Bayani remained guilty of the
charges in the previous administrative complaint against her as per OAS
Memorandum dated February 9, 1995.
Hence, her failure to disclose such finding of guilt in the PDS she
filled up, Bayani becomes administratively liable for dishonesty.
Furthermore, the OAS pointed out that
Bayani could have mentioned in the PDS that there was a previous administrative
case against her, but she was only admonished instead of choosing to conceal
it. The OAS emphasized that while admonition and stern warning are not
penalties, still, her non-disclosure thereof constituted as dishonesty. In
essence, the OAS maintained that there is no substantial difference in using
“convicted” and “guilty” as long as what is intended to be made known is the
existence of a previous finding of administrative liability. Thus, the OAS
failed to appreciate Bayani's defense of good faith as well as Bayani's length
of service.
We disagree with the OAS’s recommendation.
Indeed, dishonesty is defined as
"intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or
practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his
examination, registration, appointment or promotion." Thus, dishonesty, like bad
faith, is not simply bad judgment or negligence. Dishonesty
is a question of intention. In ascertaining the intention of a person accused
of dishonesty, consideration must be taken not only of the
facts and circumstances which gave rise to the act committed by the respondent,
but also of his state of mind at the time the offense was committed, the time
he might have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the
consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have had at that
moment.[5]
In the instant case, the OAS would
like to impress on us that Bayani is guilty of dishonesty for her deliberate
failure to disclose in her PDS the existence of previous administrative case
against her as evidenced by OAS Memorandum dated February 9, 1995. The OAS
stressed that, while Bayani's claim that admonition and warning are not
penalties, she was still found guilty in the said OAS Memorandum. The OAS explained that Bayani was just
fortunate that she was not penalized for her infraction, but her conviction
then subsists. Thus, we quoted the pertinent areas of the OAS Memorandum dated
February 9, 1995 wherein Bayani was admonished and warned, to wit:
While this Office commends the initiative and effort of Mrs. Bayani in facilitating the immediate processing of Mr. Gingco's GSIS Clearance, during which time she prepared the first and second request for it, we could not agree to her view of putting the blame for its delay entirely to GSIS. Logic and common sense would dictate that any document which remains unacted for quite some time needs constant follow-up, through a liaison officer or directly to the agency itself, if only to determine the reason for its delay or uprise the agency concerned of its inaction, especially in cases where great prejudice will result to an individual. Had Mrs. Bayani been more prudent to check on her request for Mr. Ginco's GSIS Clearance, she would have known, assuming that the allegations of Mrs. Hernaes were true, that the clearance she was requesting for had already been forwarded to their division.
x x x x
In the case of Mrs. Hernaes, we find nothing in the records
which would somehow corroborate her allegations that she had distributed the
GSIS Clearance of Mr. Gingco to the processor. Both Mrs. Bayani and Mrs.
Concepcion, the processors of RTC Region XI claimed that they did not receive
any GSIS Clearance of Mr. Gingco. Not even the messengers (Jimmy and Noel),
whom Mrs. Hernaes averred she instructed to deliver the said clearance to the
processor, could categorically state that she (Mrs. Hernaes) indeed handed to
them for distribution the GSIS Clearance of Mr. Gingco. Hence, this
office could not help but infer from the foregoing that Mr. Gingco's GSIS
Clearance, since it cannot be retrieved anymore, was lost in the hands of Mrs.
Hernaes.
Premises
considered, this Office finds Mrs. Bayani, Mrs. Concepcion, and Mrs. Hernaes
remiss in the performance of their duties and hereby respectfully recommends that
they be admonished accordingly with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same and similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
x x x x[6]
A perusal of the OAS Memorandum would
readily show that indeed Bayani was merely admonished and warned for being
remiss in the performance of her duty. Clearly, these are not penalties. If at
all, the admonition was meant as a reminder to then respondents to be diligent
in the performance of their duties. Moreover, it appeared that while Bayani was
included in the investigation and was later on admonished, she was not in fact
principally at fault. Thus, considering these circumstances, we surmise that
while Bayani made an erroneous judgment in choosing not to disclose her
previous infraction, she cannot be blamed for believing that such was
irrelevant to: (1) question no. 25 - for this incident had long been resolved
and no longer pending; and (2) question no. 27 - for clearly being admonished
and warned for being remiss in the performance for her duties do not
necessarily equate to conviction as question no. 27 seeks to determine.
Furthermore, as a matter of
procedure, the Selection and Promotion Board should have made the proper
verification with regard to the entries Bayani made in her PDS, since her answers
in question nos. 25 and 27 are easily
verifiable, considering that Bayani is an employee of the Court. Moreover, the
informations Bayani allegedly deliberately concealed are matters which are
supposedly recorded in her employment records. It should not therefore be
difficult for the board to perform their duty to assess the qualifications of
all applicants for promotions based on their own inquiries; and should not just
rely on the informations the applicants reveal.
Likewise, as admitted by the OAS, the subject
OAS Memorandum is not an A.M. Resolution/Decision which had undergone
deliberation by the Court either as en banc or through its divisions.
While it was approved by then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, it appeared that
the said OAS Memorandum was meant to be an internal memorandum only issued as a
warning/reminder to erring court employees and was not docketed as a regular
administrative matter which will also explain why it was not found out earlier.
We do not tolerate the acts of Bayani
in failing to disclose in her PDS such informations which could be material and
relevant in assessing her eligibility for promotion. We, however, find it harsh to punish Bayani
severely for her erroneous judgment.
Suffice it to say that while her defense of good faith may be difficult
to prove as clearly it is a question of intention, a state of mind, erroneous
judgment on the part of Bayani does not, however, necessarily connote the
existence of bad faith, malice, or an intention to defraud. Be that as it may,
we must emphasized that while erroneous judgment do not equate to bad faith or
dishonesty, Bayani, should likewise know that prudence demands that she should
disclose such information no matter how irrelevant it may appear to her.
Indeed, in administrative proceedings,
only substantial evidence is required to warrant disciplinary sanctions. We define substantial evidence as relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. Thus, after much consideration of the facts and circumstances,
while the Court has not shied away in imposing the strictest penalty to erring
employees, neither can we think and rule unreasonably in determining whether an
employee deserves disciplinary sanction.
WHEREFORE, HERMOGENA
F. BAYANI, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Leave Division, Office of
Administrative Services, Supreme Court, is hereby ADMONISHED
and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant
the imposition of a more severe penalty.
|
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
|
|
|
|
With the clarification that this is not a penalty.
MA. LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Associate Justice