ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 47 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE ON ASSISTANT CITY
PROSECUTOR ZENAIDA C. ISIDRO OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF
TACLOBAN CITY, FOR DISHONESTY AND GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY
This refers to the administrative
complaint, docketed as DOJ Administrative Case No. 99-0032-FS,
initiated by Ruperto B. Golong, Jr., Chief City Prosecutor (CCP) of
Tacloban City, charging Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP), Zenaida C.
Isidro, of the City Prosecutor's Office of Tacloban City detailed at
the City Prosecutor's Office of Calbayog City, for dishonesty. The
charge sheet reads as:
"That you had consistently reported in your Monthly Accomplishment
Report for 1996, 1997 and from January to June 1998 that you had either
one (1) or two (2) or no (0) pending case for resolution and in your
Monthly Certificate of Service for the same period; that you had no
pending case for resolution beyond 60-day period. However, when an
inventory of your cases was made . . . it was found out that you had
fifty-six (56) cases unresolved for 1996, sixty-six (66) unresolved
cases for 1997 and twenty-six (26) unresolved cases for 1998 or a total
of one hundred forty-four (144) cases (unresolved) for the said
years"
In support of the charges, CCP Gulong submitted Isidro's monthly
accomplishment report where she made it appear that she had a 100%
total disposition rate of cases for the period covering 1996-1998, and
Isidro's Certificates of Service for the same period stating that she
had no pending case for preliminary investigation/reinvestigation/or
review that was more than sixty (60) days from the time a case was
assigned to her.
In her defense, Isidro denies that she was dishonest when she certified
in her accomplishment report that she had no pending cases for the
periods 1996, 1997 and from January to June, 1998. She admits, however,
that in 1996 to 1997 she suffered recurrent ailment that affected her
efficiency. She further explains that the bulk of these cases were for
violations of B.P. 22, which basically are collection cases where the
complainant was less interested in prosecuting the respondents; that a
number of these cases did not reach the courts because of complainants'
desistance, while others did not end in conviction because of
settlement. Thus, she explains, to rush the filing of these cases in
court would only clog court dockets and entail additional expenses on
the part of the government. Under the circumstances, she reasons, it
would be more judicious if the rules are relaxed than to adhere
strictly to the time limit imposed by the rules. To substantiate her
allegations, Isidro submitted her medical certificate and leave
application filed on May 29 1997.
Isidro likewise cites other factors, such as the lack of mimeograph
forms of the Information for BP 22, which she claims contributed to the
delay in the resolution of the BP 22 cases.
Lastly, she explains that, as a matter of usual practice, the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Tacloban City distributes the Certificates of
Service to the assistant prosecutors concerned for their respective
signatures one or two days before they transmitted to the Central
Office in Manila; that the forms are already prepared so she just had
to affix her signature therein. She admits that she did not give
meticulous consideration to the certifications written on the form
notably the second certification regarding the pending cases. She
insists though that she was not motivated by dishonesty when she
affixed her signature on those forms.
Following a thorough investigation and a careful evaluation of the
complainant's allegations and the evidence presented vis-a-vis Isidro's
explanation, the Secretary of Justice found Isidro guilty of dishonesty
and gross neglect of duty, and recommended that she be dismissed from
the service.
We concur with the DOJ's findings.
Dishonesty is the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of
fact relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of
one's duties. Dishonesty is a serious offense. It reflects on the
person's character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys
one's honor, virtue and integrity (Prieto vs. Caraga 242 SCRA 315).
Under Sec. 22 of Rule XIV of the Implementing Rules of the Civil
Service, the offense of dishonesty is punishable by dismissal.
The fact that ACP Isidro committed acts constituting the offense of
dishonesty appears to have been established. By declaring in her
Accomplishment Reports that she had a 100% total disposition rate of
cases for the periods covering 1996 to 1998, and by certifying in her
Certificate of Service that she had no pending cases, when, in truth
and in fact, she had a total of 144 unresolved cases for the said
period, Isidro deliberately concealed the truth on a matter relevant to
her office, i.e. that she failed to comply with the directive under DOJ
Circular No. 49, s. of 1993. This issuance requires all prosecutors to
terminate and resolve preliminary investigation of complaints within
sixty (60) days from date of assignment. Being public documents, the
falsification of Accomplishment Reports and the Certificate Service
constitutes a serious offense of dishonesty as there is a duty to
disclose the truth.
Isidro's protestations of innocence and good faith deserve scant
consideration as they are but attempts to cover up and justify her
negligence as well as her non-compliance with the prescription of DOJ
Circular No. 49.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and as recommended by the Department of
Justice, Assistant City Prosecutor Zenaida C. Isidro of the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Tacloban City, is hereby dismissed from the
service for dishonesty and gross neglect of duty effective upon receipt
of this Order.
DONE in the City of Manila,
this 25th day of November, in the year of our Lord, two thousand and
two.
|