JUDGE
FATIMA GONZALES-ASDALA,
Complainant,
-versus-
A.M. No. P-05-1936
January 21, 2005
BONIFACIO C. WONG, Utility Worker, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 87, Quezon City,
Respondent.
BONIFACIO C. WONG,
Complainant,
-versus-
A.M.
No. RTJ-05-1894
January 21, 2005
JUDGE FATIMA GONZALES-ASDALA, Regional Trial court,
Branch 87, Quezon City,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 87 filed a complaint before the Office of the Court
Administrator against Bonifacio C. Wong, Utility Worker of the same
court, for gross inefficiency, dishonesty and misrepresentation,
absenteeism and unauthorized leaves of absence, unsuitability and/or
ineptness, insubordination, and acts prejudicial to the best interest
of the service.[1] The case was docketed as A.M. No. P-05-1936.
On January 14, 2003, Wong also instituted a complaint against Judge
Asdala for grave abuse of authority. The case was docketed as
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1894.[2]
Both cases were eventually consolidated and assigned to Court of
Appeals’ Associate Justice Godardo A. Jacinto for investigation, report
and recommendation.
Judge Asdala alleged that Wong was grossly inefficient in the
performance of his duties. He allegedly represented himself to
litigants as having strong connections to her; borrowed money from
several people; misplaced certain court documents and even showed
disgust when confronted. Wong also deliberately failed to report
for work for several days claiming to be sick when in fact he was seen
loitering around the court vicinity.
She asserted that because of Wong’s ineptness, some pleadings were
missing or were filed in the wrong folder. Wong preferred to sit
down, roam around or leave his workstation which resulted in the dirty
and shabby condition of the court premises. There were times when
she had to clean the chambers herself including the toilet. Wong
would just dump the garbage along the corridors and wait for other
people to properly dispose of the same. She maintained that Wong
is guilty of insubordination when upon being confronted about some
missing pleadings, he refused to leave the chambers and even threatened
to resist any move to terminate him from the service.
On the other hand, Wong explained that he borrowed money from other
people because his salary was insufficient to meet the needs of his
family. He insisted that he did not borrow money from the judge
although his wife used to receive money for services she rendered to
the judge and her family. He claimed that filing and bookkeeping
are not part of his job and that he had done his best to perform his
duties.
Wong charged Judge Asdala with grave abuse of authority contending
that, on September 23, 2002, the latter forced him to resign on the
pretext that she was unsatisfied with his work. According to
Wong, the real reason why she wanted him to resign was because he
accidentally closed a book left open by the judge on her table.
On September 24, 2002, the judge ordered him out of the court premises.
Wong argued that he continued reporting for work until September 26,
2002 but on September 27, 2002, Judge Asdala prohibited him from
entering the court premises. On November 27, 2004[3] the judge
requested the Chief of the Security Services of the Quezon City Hall of
Justice to bar him from entering the building. At the same time,
she informed the Chief Security Officer that he is not an employee of
good standing and has been declared AWOL since September 24, 2002.
Judge Asdala denied that she forced Wong to resign. She recalled
that the only instance that she summoned Wong to her chambers was on
September 11, 2002 when she reminded him of his duties and
responsibilities. On the same occasion, she issued Wong a
memorandum enumerating the “do’s and don’ts” of his job which only
reiterated the verbal instructions that were repeatedly given him by
the branch clerk of court. She insisted that Wong was an
inefficient and inept employee who cannot deliver even the minimum
quality of work required of him.
She also alleged that because Wong is the husband of her cousin, he
presumed that he enjoyed the privilege of going in and out of her
chambers without permission and interfering with her things. She
pointed out that she acted within the bounds of her authority when she
called Wong’s attention to his incompetence.
In his Consolidated Report dated November 12, 2004, Investigating
Justice Jacinto found the charges for gross inefficiency leveled
against Wong to be adequately substantiated. He reported that
Wong’s gross inefficiency is apparent from his unsatisfactory
performance rating from the time he was employed until September
2002.[4] He concluded that Wong’s failure to report for work “was
not of his own volition but by reason of the fact that he was no longer
welcome in the office of Judge Asdala.”[5]
At the same time, he found that the charge for grave abuse of authority
against Judge Asdala was not satisfactorily established as she did not
directly and categorically ordered the Chief Security Officer to ban
Wong from entering the court premises. Neither was it proven that
the judge forced him to resign.
The Investigating Justice recommended the dismissal of Wong from the
service but recommended that Wong be paid his salaries “from the time
it was withheld up to the date that he is officially terminated from
office.”[6]
On November 22, 2004, the parties were required to manifest within 10
days from notice whether they are willing to submit the case for
resolution based on the pleadings filed. To date, Judge Asdala
has not submitted her manifestation and is deemed to have waived the
filing of the same.
We agree with the findings of the Investigating Justice that the charge
for gross inefficiency against Wong was sufficiently substantiated by
competent evidence. During the investigation, Judge Asdala
categorically and positively demonstrated that Wong had shown patent
incompetence and ineptness in performing his duties. The
testimonies of then Branch Clerk of Court (now Prosecutor) Jesusa Carag
and Clerk II Nicanor Cabigao that Wong had to be reminded practically
everyday on how to do his job shows his penchant for taking his job
lightly and, worse, refusing to take heed the reasonable advice of his
superiors.
Wong’s obstinate refusal to improve his performance despite constant
reminders and warnings and his inability to perform even simple errands
were the reasons why he received an unsatisfactory rating for the
period February to September 2002.
We likewise found that there is no substantial evidence to prove the
charge of grave abuse of authority against Judge Asdala. A
cursory reading of her November 27, 2002 letter to the Chief Security
Officer would show that it was a mere request subject to the discretion
of the officer to whom it was addressed. Significantly, despite
said letter, Wong was seen in the vicinity of the Hall of
Justice. In fact, a few days after the letter was issued, Wong
and his wife were at the Office of the Executive Judge purportedly
inquiring about the prohibition issued by Judge Asdala.
There is no evidence that the judge forced Wong into signing a
resignation letter. The judge not only categorically denied the
accusation but satisfactory explained herself as well when she
testified that she merely summoned Wong to her chambers to apprise him
about his poor performance. At the same time, she warned him to
improve on his work else she would be forced to recommend his
termination.
Section 52 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service classifies inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of
official duties as a grave offense and punishable by suspension ranging
from 6 months and 1 day to 1 year, for the first offense and dismissal
for the second offense. There is no showing that Wong had been
earlier administratively charged and found guilty thereof. The
proper imposable penalty therefore is suspension and not dismissal.
Section 54 of the same Rules also provides that if no mitigating and
aggravating circumstances are present, the penalty shall be imposed in
its medium period. Hence, Wong’s suspension should range from 8
months and 1 day to 10 months.
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, Bonifacio C. Wong is hereby SUSPENDED for TEN (10) MONTHS
WITHOUT PAY and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
offense will be dealt with more severely. The complaint in A.M.
No. RTJ-05-1894 is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, J., (Acting Chairman), Carpio, and
Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), on leave.
[1]
Rollo of A.M. No. P-05-1936, p. 1.
[2]
Rollo of A.M. No. RTJ-05-1894, p. 1.
[3]
Id., p. 13.
[4]
Consolidated Report, p. 20.
[5]
Id., p. 23.
[6] Id.
|