Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
FALSIFICATION OF DAILY
TIME RECORDS OF MA. EMCISA A. BENEDICTOS, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER I, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN |
|
A.M. No.
P-10-2784 (Formerly
A.M. No. 05-3-138-RTC) Present: Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: October 19, 2011 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
Before
the Court is an administrative complaint charging Ma. Emcisa A. Benedictos
(Benedictos), Administrative Officer I, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Office of
the Clerk of Court (OCC), Malolos City, Bulacan, with dishonesty for falsifying
her Daily Time Records (DTRs)/bundy cards.
The
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) sent a telegram[1]
dated November 5, 2004 requesting Executive Judge Guillermo Agloro of the RTC,
OCC, Malolos City, Bulacan, to instruct Benedictos to submit her DTRs/bundy
cards for September and October 2004 within five days, otherwise, the OCA would
recommend the withholding of Benedictoss salaries.
Benedictos
submitted her bundy cards for August, October, and November 2004, which the OCA
referred to Atty. Emmanuel L. Ortega (Atty. Ortega), Clerk of Court VII, RTC,
Malolos City, Bulacan, for verification of his signatures appearing thereon. In a letter[2]
dated January 13, 2005 to the OCA, Atty. Ortega reported that only his
signature on Benedictoss bundy card for November 2004 was true and genuine; and
he disowned his purported signatures on Benedictoss bundy cards for August and
October 2004.
On
In a Resolution dated June 29, 2005,
the Court withheld Benedictoss salaries and benefits until she submitted her
DTRs/bundy cards for September 2004.
On
Consequently, in a Resolution[5] dated
June 25, 2007, the Court directed Benedictos (1) to show cause why she should
not be administratively dealt with for refusing to submit her comment despite
the two directives from the OCA; and (2) to submit the required comment within
five days from notice, otherwise the Court shall take the necessary action
against her and decide the administrative complaint on the basis of the record
on hand.
When Benedictos failed once more to
file a comment, the Court issued a Resolution[6] on
P1,000.00. Yet, Benedictos did not pay the fine nor
submitted her comment on Atty. Ortegas letter.
Finally, in a Resolution[7]
dated
The OCA submitted its Report[8] on
October 15, 2009 with the following recommendations:
Foregoing considered, we respectfully
recommend for the consideration of the Honorable Court:
1. that the instant case be RE-DOCKETED as a
regular administrative matter;
2. that respondent Ma. E[m]cisa A. Benedictos,
Administrative Officer I, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court,
Malolos City, Bulacan be found GUILTY of Dishonesty; and
3. that considering that this is respondents
first administrative offense, the minimum penalty of SUSPENSION for six (6)
months and one (1) day, effective immediately, be meted upon her.[9]
On
As found by the OCA, Benedictos is
guilty of dishonesty for falsifying her DTRs/bundy cards.
In his letter dated
Benedictoss
silence on a principal charge against her is admission, especially considering
that she was given ample opportunity to deny the same.[11] Benedictoss refusal to face the charges
against her head-on is contrary to the principle in criminal law that the first
impulse of an innocent person, when accused of wrongdoing, is to express his or
her innocence at the first opportune time.[12]
Moreover,
as a result of its own analytical study of the evidence on record, the Court is
convinced that Atty. Ortegas signatures appearing on Benedictoss bundy cards
for August and October 2004 were indeed forged.
The marked differences between Atty. Ortegas purported signatures on
Benedictoss bundy cards for August and October 2004, on one hand, and Atty.
Ortegas admitted genuine signatures on Benedictoss bundy cards for September
and November 2004, on the other, are easily discernible even to the naked eye.
In
determining the appropriate penalty, the Court deems Benedictoss falsification
of her bundy cards tantamount to dishonesty. This Court has defined dishonesty as the (d)isposition
to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack
of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and
straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.[13] Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave
offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with
forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual
disqualification for reemployment in government service.[14]
However,
in several administrative cases, the Court refrained from imposing the actual
penalties in the presence of mitigating factors. There
were several cases,[15] particularly
involving dishonesty, in which the Court meted a penalty lower than dismissal
because of the existence of mitigating circumstances.
In
Re: Ting and Esmerio,[16] the
Court did not impose the severe penalty
of dismissal because the respondents acknowledged their infractions, demonstrated
remorse, and had dedicated long years of service to the judiciary.
Instead, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension for six months on Ting,
and the forfeiture of Esmerios salary equivalent to six months on account of
the latters retirement.
The
Court similarly imposed in Re: Failure of
Jose Dante E. Guerrero to Register his Time In and Out in the Chronolog Time
Recorder Machine on Several Dates[17]
the penalty of six months suspension on an employee found guilty of dishonesty
for falsifying his time record. The
Court took into account as mitigating circumstances Guererros good performance
rating, 13 years of satisfactory service in the judiciary, and his
acknowledgment of and remorse for his infractions.
The
compassion extended by the Court in the aforementioned cases was not without
legal basis. Section 53, Rule IV of the
Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[18] grants
the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances
in the imposition of the proper penalty.
In
the case at bar, this is Benedictoss first administrative case in her 19 years
in government service, for which six months suspension is already sufficient
penalty.
Additionally,
the Court bears in mind Benedictoss failure to submit her comment, which
constitutes clear and willful disrespect, not just for the OCA, but also for
the Court, which exercises direct administrative supervision over trial court
officers and employees through the former.
In fact, it can be said that Benedictoss non-compliance with the OCA
directives is tantamount to insubordination to the Court itself.[19] Benedictos also
directly demonstrated her disrespect to the Court by ignoring its Resolutions
dated June 25, 2007 (ordering her to show cause for her failure to comply with
the OCA directives and to file her comment) and March 26, 2008 (ordering her to
pay a fine of P1,000.00 for her continuous failure to file a comment).
A resolution of the Supreme Court
should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly
and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a
recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Courts lawful
order and directive.[20]
This contumacious conduct of refusing to abide by the lawful directives issued
by the Court has likewise been considered as an utter lack of interest to
remain with, if not contempt of, the system.[21]
Benedictoss insolence is further aggravated by the fact that she is an
employee of the Judiciary, who, more than an ordinary citizen, should be aware
of her duty to obey the orders and processes of the Supreme Court without
delay.[22]
For
her non-compliance with the show cause order and nonpayment of the fine imposed
upon her in the Supreme Court Resolutions dated June 25, 2007 and March 26,
2008, respectively, Benedictos is ordered to pay an additional fine of P2,000.00,
in addition to the original fine of P1,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Ma. Emcisa
Benedictos GUILTY of dishonesty and
imposes upon her the penalty of SUSPENSION
for six (6) months, effective immediately. The Court further orders Benedictos to pay a FINE in the total amount of P3,000.00
for her failure to comply with the Resolutions dated June 25, 2007 and March
26, 2008. Finally, the Court issues a stern
warning to Benedictos that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be
dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice |
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, p. 15.
[2] Id.
at 3.
[3] Id.
at 8.
[4] Id.
at 9.
[5] Id. at 19.
[6] Id. at 23.
[7] Id. at 30.
[8] Id. at 32-35.
[9] Id. at 35.
[10] Id. at 37.
[11] Donton v. Loria. 519 Phil. 212, 217 (2006).
[12] Report on the Financial Audit Conducted at the Municipal Trial Courts of Bani, Alaminos and Lingayen in Pangasinan, 462 Phil. 535, 543 (2003).
[13] Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Secretary I & Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division, 502 Phil. 264, 277 (2005).
[14] Office of the Court Administrator v. Magno, 419 Phil. 593, 602 (2001); Sec. 22(a), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), as amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999.
[15] Concerned Employee v. Valentin, 498 Phil. 347, 352 (2005); Dipolog v. Montealto, A.M. No. P-04-190, November 23, 2004, 443 SCRA 465, 478; Re: Alleged Tampering of the Daily Time Records (DTR) of Sherry B. Cervantes, Court Stenographer III, Branch 18, Regional Trial Court, Manila, A.M. No. 03-8-463-RTC, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 572, 576; Office of the Court Administrator v. Sirios, 457 Phil. 42, 48-49 (2003); Reyes-Domingo v. Morales, 396 Phil. 150, 164-165 (2000).
[16] Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against
Elizabeth Ting, Court Secretary I & Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Office of
the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division, supra note 13 at 280-281.
[17] 521 Phil. 482, 497-499 (2006).
[18] CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999.
[19] Tan
v. Sermonia, A.M. No. P-08-2436, August
4, 2009, 595 SCRA 1, 13.
[20] Tugot v. Judge Coliflores, 467 Phil. 391, 402-403 (2004).
[21] Parane v. Reloza, A.M. No. MTJ-92-718, November 7, 1994, 238 SCRA 1, 4.
[22] Tan
v. Sermonia, supra note 19 at 14.