Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
SHEILA G.
Trial Court, Branch 36, City, Isabela,
Complainant, - versus
- MARY ANNE C. PASCUA, Court Stenographer III, same Court,
Respondent. -- - |
A.M.
No. P-11-2999
[formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3517-P]
Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: February 27, 2012 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
R E S O L
U T I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
|
|
|
In her complaint-affidavit,[1]
complainant Sheila G. del Rosario charges Mary Anne C. Pascua (respondent), Court Stenographer III of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Santiago City, Isabela, with Dishonesty
(1) for traveling to Hong Kong from June 1 to 6, 2008 without securing a travel
authority from the Supreme Court and for not stating in her leave application
her foreign travel; and (2) for misrepresenting in her official documents in
the Supreme Court her date of birth as June 27, 1974, when her registered date
of birth in the National Statistics Office (NSO)
is August 7, 1974.
The Office
of the Court Administrator (OCA)
directed the respondent to comment on the complaint.[2]
The respondent
admitted that she failed to secure a travel authority from the Supreme Court,
but explained that it was due to mere inadvertence. She alleged that her true
date of birth, as reflected in her baptismal certificate and her marriage
contract, is June 27, 1974, and she was in the process of correcting with the
NSO her registered date of birth to reflect her true date of birth. She
insisted that she did not commit any act of dishonesty.[3]
The OCA
recommended that the present matter be redocketed as a regular administrative
matter. It found the respondent guilty of violation of reasonable office rules
and regulations for traveling abroad without the required travel authority. It
recommended that the respondent be reprimanded for her first offense.[4]
The OCA also
found the respondent guilty of simple dishonesty for failing to disclose in her
leave application her foreign travel. It recommended the penalty of suspension for
one (1) month. It noted that the respondent did not commit any dishonesty regarding
the discrepancy in her date of birth since she wanted to reflect her true date
of birth as
We adopt the OCAs findings, but modify the recommended penalties.
OCA
Circular No. 49-2003[6]
provides that court personnel who wish
to travel abroad must secure a travel authority from the Office of the Court
Administrator. Section 67 of the Omnibus Rules on Leave[7]
provides that [a]ny violation of the
leave laws, rules or regulations, or any misrepresentation or deception in
connection with an application for leave shall be a ground for disciplinary
action. Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service,[8]
violation of reasonable office rules and regulations is a light offense punishable
with the penalty of reprimand for the first offense, suspension of one (1) day
to thirty (30) days for the second offense, and dismissal from the service for
the third offense.
In this
case, since the respondent traveled without securing a travel authority and did
not state her foreign travel in her leave application, she is guilty of
violating at least two (2) office rules and regulations. These twin violations
should be reflected in her penalties, particularly in the second offense
failure to state in her leave application her travel abroad which, to our
mind, strongly suggests deception on her part amounting to dishonesty. She
should be suspended without pay for three (3) months for her twin infractions.
Let this be a warning to all who might be minded to risk a one-month suspension
if only to avoid disclosing to the Court that they shall be traveling abroad.
We find
that the discrepancy in the respondents date of birth in her records does not
amount to dishonesty, as she made no false statement. No deliberate intent to
mislead, deceive or defraud appears from the cited circumstances of this case. Dishonesty
means "the concealment of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's
office or connected with the performance of his duties. It is an absence of
integrity, a disposition to betray, cheat, deceive or defraud, bad faith."[9]
The respondents date of birth is not a fact directly relevant to her functions
or qualification to office or connected with the performance of her duties.
Besides, her other records, i.e., baptismal
certificate and marriage contract, reflected June 27, 1974 as her true date of
birth; she simply wanted to reflect this fact in her records.
WHEREFORE, respondent
Mary Anne C. Pascua, Court Stenographer III of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
36,
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
JOSE
Associate Justice Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
[1] Dated
[2]
[3] Dated
[4] Memorandum dated
[5] Ibid.
[6] Dated
[7] As
amended by Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 41, s. 1998; Nos. 6,
14 and 24, s. 1999.
[8] Promulgated
by the Civil Service Commission through Resolution No. 99-1936 dated
[9] Basilla v. Ricafort, A.M. No. P-06-2233,