SECOND DIVISION.
.
OFFICE
OF THE
COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, REPRESENTED BYASST. COURT
ADMINSTRATOR
ANTONIO H. DUJUA,
Complainant, |
A.M.
No.
P-01-1521
(Formerly A.M.
OCA
IPI No. 00-1017-P)
November 11, 2003
-versus-
GREGORIO M.
MALLARE,
LYDIA M. BUENCAMINO, JOAQUIN L. CALUAG, JR.,LUCIA D. CALUAG,
MA. CRISTINA A. DE JESUS, FRANCISCA H. GALVEZ,FLORANTE T.
NATIVIDAD,
SR., SHERWIN P. BARTOLOME, WALTER M. ESTAMO,AND MARTIN BARRY
P. MAGNO, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC),MALOLOS, BULACAN,
BRANCH 76,
Respondents.
|
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
On October 19, 2000,
the members of the Supreme Court Committee on the Halls of Justice
(HOJ),
including Assistant Court Administrator (ACA) Antonio H. Dujua,
conducted
an ocular inspection of the different Regional Trial Courts in Malolos,
Bulacan and Angeles City, Pampanga. When they inspected the courts in
Malolos,
Bulacan at about 8:30 a.m., they observed that there were only a few
court
employees in the different branches who were present in their
respective
places of work.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Branch 76 of the
RTC presided by Judge Rolando P. Jurado, only the sheriff of the said
branch
was in the office. Upon inquiry, the Committee Members learned that
Judge
Jurado was on leave, and was in the United States. The daily time
records
(DTR) of the rest of the court personnel, based on the entries in the
said
records, indicated that the court employees reported to work before
8:00
a.m. that day, but were not in their posts. The employees (herein
respondents)
made the following entries in their DTR:
1.
Gregorio
M. Mallare - 7:05 a.m. Court Legal Researcher IIchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Lydia M.
Buencamino
- 7:05 a.m. Interpreter IIIchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Joaquin L.
Caluag,
Jr. - 7:25 a.m. Court Stenographer IIIchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. Lucia D.
Caluag
- 7:30 a.m. Court Stenographer IIIchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. Ma. Cristina
A.
de Jesus - 7:15 a.m. Court Stenographer IIIchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6. Francisco H.
Galvez
- 7:25 a.m. Court Stenographer IIIchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
7. Walter M.
Estamo
- 7:35 a.m. Clerk IIIchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
8. Florante T.
Natividad,
Sr. - 7:40 a.m. Clerk IIIchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
9. Sherwin
Bartolome
- 7:35 a.m. Process Serverchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
10. Martin Barry
P.
Magno - 7:40 a.m. Utility Worker I[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a Memorandum dated
November
20, 2000, ACA Dujua reported the matter to then Court Administrator
Alfredo
Benipayo, attaching thereto copies of the employees' DTR and
recommended
referral to the Legal Office for appropriate action.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The said court personnel
were required by the Court Administrator to file their respective
comments
on charges of Dishonesty and Falsification of Daily Time Records on
February
2, 200.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 19, 2001, Judge
Roland B. Jurado transmitted to the Court the explanations/comments of
his personnel in connection with the November 20, 2000 Memorandum of
ACA
Antonio Dujua. Martin Barry P. Magno, Lucia D. Caluag and Joaquin L.
Caluag,
Jr. filed a Joint Explanation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In compliance with the
indorsement of the Court Administrator, the respondents filed their
respective
comments.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 12, 2001,
the Court issued a resolution referring the administrative matter to
the
Executive Judge of the RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, for investigation, report
and recommendation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After the conclusion
of the investigation, Executive Judge Oscar C. Herrera, Jr. submitted
his
sealed report, in which he calibrated the evidence, testimonial and
documentary,
of each of the respondents, the probative weight thereof, and his
conclusion
thereon, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1)
Respondent
Mallare asserted that on October 19, 2000, he was at the RTC Library
from
8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. studying the penalties to be imposed in drug
cases
in their sala and that he even borrowed a copy of the Revised Penal
Code.
This cannot be so. Drug offenses are not governed by the Revised Penal
Code but by Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, also known as the
"Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972." Copies of said law as well as other materials
including
those for the determination of penalties in drug cases have been
provided
to all Special Courts for Drug Cases in Bulacan which even include that
of the undersigned. His claim that he joined Prosecutor Taloma and
respondent
Florante Natividad, Sr., at the provincial canteen from 9:00 a.m. to
9:30
a.m. only showed lack of sense of duty and responsibility on his part.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2) Respondent
Buencamino
said that she was not around when the members of the Committee on Halls
of Justice came because she had to make some verifications concerning
cases
assigned to their sala. She first went to Branch 22, their pairing
branch.
Thereafter, from Branch 22, she proceeded to the Provincial Jail. She
said
it took her about ten (10) minutes to get to Branch 22, and about
fifteen
(15) to twenty (20) minutes from Branch 22 to the Provincial Jail.
Since
it would take five (5) to ten (10) minutes from the Provincial Jail to
go back to their sala, she decided to take her breakfast first. The
time
element given by respondent Buencamino to explain the length of her
absence
from their sala is not at all correct. The offices alluded to are
housed
in small buildings which are very close and practically adjacent to one
another. It will take no more than three (3) minutes from Branch 76,
where
respondent Buencamino is assigned, to get to Branch 22 and no more than
three (3) minutes to get to the Provincial Jail from Branch 22. On the
other hand, the Provincial Jail is so close to and only about 50 meters
away from Branch 76, that it will take less than one (1) minute to
negotiate
the distance between the two, not five (5) to ten (10) minutes as
incorrectly
suggested by respondent Buencamino.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3) Respondent
Galvez
claimed that she was not at the office because she went to the Office
of
the Provincial Prosecutor and stayed there from 8:00 a.m. to about
10:30
a.m. because she was summoned by Prosecutor Lucita Marcelo for some
correction
of the transcript of stenographic notes in four (4) criminal cases.
This
cannot be true. The correction of transcript of stenographic notes is
not
done unilaterally but only upon motion, orally in open court or in
writing,
and after giving the other party an opportunity to comment on the
proposed
correction.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4) Respondent
Bartolome,
the process server, said that he was not in the office because he left
at around 8:00 a.m. to serve three (3) orders, one judgment on the bond
and a subpoena at Camp Alejo Santos, Malolos, Bulacan. However, a
closer
look at the orders (Exhs. "7-B," "7-C" and "7-D") and judgment against
the bond (Exh. "7-E") referred to by respondent Bartolome show that
these
were served to offices within the Provincial Capitol Compound in
Malolos,
Bulacan, while the subpoena (Exh. "7-F") was addressed to the nearby
Camp
Alejo Santos. Yet, respondent Bartlome's DTR (Exh. "8") indicates that
he did not report back to the office on October 19, 2000 after he
punched
in the morning of said day.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It appears that the
aforementioned
respondents did not commit falsification of their daily time records
(DTRs)
because they actually reported to the office in the morning of October
19, 2000. However, their explanations as to why they left and were not
in their respective posts when the members of the Committee on Halls of
Justice conducted an inspection there are not satisfactory. The
undersigned
submits that they are guilty of misconduct and should be severely
reprimanded.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With respect to respondents
Joaquin Caluag, Jr., Lucia Caluag and Magno, there is ample showing
that
they indeed went to the Supreme Court on October 19, 2000 and
transacted
some official business there. In particular, Joaquin Caluag and Magno
did
so upon specific instructions given by the presiding judge of the sala,
while Lucia Caluag took advantage of the absence of court hearings on
that
day and joined the two (2) for some official business pertaining to her
employment in the judiciary.cralaw:red
The explanations given
by respondents Estamo and De Jesus are credible and convincing. There
is
ample evidence to the effect that respondent Estamo had himself treated
that morning in Plaridel, Bulacan due to a leg injury, while respondent
De Jesus indeed brought her ailing son to the St. Therese Medical
Clinic
in Calumpit, Bulacan for treatment (see Exhs. "3-B," "3-C" and "3-D")chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, it appears
that some fault is attributable to Atty. Eusebio Barranta, Branch Clerk
of Court of Branch 76, who should have been impleaded, but was not
impleaded,
as a respondent here. In his testimony, Atty. Barranta admitted that he
reported for work on October 19, 2000 only at 9:00 a.m. But apart from
essentially testifying that he gave permission to Joaquin Caluag, Lucia
Caluag and Barry Magno to go to the Supreme Court, he did not say much
in terms of explaining what had actually happened on that day obviously
to cover up for his own deficiencies. Although he declared that he was
informed about the visit of the members of the Committee on Halls of
Justice
who found their sala deserted, there is no showing, whatsoever, of any
concrete action or step taken by him to find out and to report how it
happened,
and of any remedial measure undertaken to prevent the occurrence of a
similar
situation. It is quite clear that, as Branch Clerk of Court, he was
negligent
and he failed to maintain discipline among the members of his staff who
were thus caught gallivanting during the absence of the presiding judge.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Investigating Judge
made the following recommendations:
(1)
Respondents
Gregorio M. Mallare, Lydia M. Buencamino, Francisca H. Galvez, Florante
T. Natividad, Sr., and Sherwin P. Bartolome be severely reprimanded;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) The complaint
be
dismissed as against respondents Joaquin L. Caluag, Jr., Lucia D.
Caluag,
Ma. Cristina A. de Jesus, Walter Estamo and Martin Barry P. Magno.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The undersigned also
recommends
that Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Eusebio Barranta be admonished for
negligence
and failure to maintain discipline among his subordinates, with a
warning
that he will be severely penalized should a similar situation occur in
the office where he is assigned.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The case was then referred
to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.cralaw:red
The OCA agreed in part
with the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Judge.
However,
with respect to respondents Gregorio Mallare, Lydia M. Buencamino,
Francisca
Galvez, Florante T. Natividad, Sr. and Sherwin P. Bartolome, the OCA
believed
that the said court employees were guilty not only of misconduct, but
of
"loafing," which is considered a grave offense and a clear violation of
paragraph (q), Section 22, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
Book
V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) which
states:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 22.
Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified
into grave, less grave, and light, depending on the gravity of its
nature
and effects of said acts on the government service.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The following are
grave
offenses with corresponding penalties.
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
(q) Frequent
unauthorized
absences, loafing or frequent unauthorized absences from duty during
regular
office hours.
1st Offense —
Suspension
for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year
2nd Offense —
Dismissal
x x x (Emphasis supplied.)[6]
While respondents Ma.
Cristina
A. de Jesus and Walter Estamo had valid excuses for their absences as
they
sought medical treatment during that time, they should have at least
punched
out their bundy cards when they left the office. For this, the OCA
submits,
the said respondents deserved to be reprimanded. As far as respondents
Joaquin Caluag, Jr., Lucia Caluag and Martin Barry P. Magno, including
Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Eusebio Barranta were concerned, the OCA
adopted
the Investigating Judge's findings. Thus, the OCA recommended that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1)
Pursuant
to the finding of Executive Judge Oscar C. Herrera, Jr., respondents
Gregorio
M. Mallare, Lydia M. Buencamino, Francisca H. Galvez, Florante T.
Natividad,
Sr. and Sherwin P. Bartolome be SUSPENDED for six (6) months without
pay
for loafing during regular office hours in violation of Paragraph (q),
Section 22, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V Executive
Order No. 292 otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987 with a
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future
shall be dealt with more severely;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) Respondents
Ma.
Cristina A. de Jesus and Walter Estamo be SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for not
punching out their bundy cards when they sought medical treatment on
October
19, 2000 with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in
the future will be dealt with more severely;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) Atty. Eusebio
Barranta,
Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 76, Malolos, Bulacan, be ADMONISHED
for negligence and failure to maintain discipline among his
subordinates
with a STRONG WARNING that he will be severely penalized should similar
acts or situation occur in his office in the future; and
(4) The complaint
against
Joaquin L. Caluag, Jr., Lucia D. Caluag Martin Barry P. Magno be
DISMISSED.[7]
After a careful review
of the records of the instant administrative case, we find the
recommended
sanctions made by the Investigating Judge against respondents Ma.
Cristina
A. de Jesus and Walter Estamo, and Eusebio Barranta in accord with the
evidence on record and the applicable laws, rules and regulations.
However,
we find that the penalty of suspension, as recommended by the OCA on
the
respondents Gregorio M. Mallare, Lydia M. Buencamino, Francisca H.
Galvez,
Florante T. Natividad, Sr. and Sherwin P. Bartolome for "loafing" quite
harsh.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is no dispute
that the respondents reported for work quite early on October 19, 2000,
logged their time of arrival in their DTR, but were not in their posts
when the members of the SC Committee on HOJ made a surprise visit and a
random check on the offices. The excuses given by respondents Gregorio
M. Mallare, Lydia M. Buencamino, Francisco H. Galvez, Florante T.
Natividad,
Sr. and Sherwin P. Bartolome were not acceptable as the Investigating
Judge
found them to be flimsy and strained.cralaw:red
The CSC rules define
"loafing" as "frequent unauthorized absences from duty during office
hours."[8]
The word "frequent" connotes that the employees absent themselves from
duty more than once. Apparently, this case was the first time that a
random
check was conducted by the members of the SC Committee on HOJ, and was
likewise the first time that the respondents were caught outside their
respective posts during office hours. There is no evidence on record
that
the respondents had been absent from duty on prior occasions. The
Investigating
Judge did not find them to be absent on other occasions during office
hours
as well. Nor were there any complaints from their superiors, Atty.
Barranta
or Judge Jurado, that the respondents were absent or were not in their
posts on several occasions.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondents' absence
from duty when the Committee members made their surprise inspection
should,
therefore, be considered as a first infraction. Indeed, the performance
ratings of the respondents do not reveal such delinquency on their part
as to merit the penalty of suspension. Judge Jurado even testified that
his employees were competent and trustworthy. It is thus erroneous to
conclude
that the respondents were guilty of "loafing" or "frequently absent
from
duty during regular office hours" on the basis of this single
circumstance
only, as the same is barren of factual basis.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, we agree that
the respondents are guilty of misconduct. The fact that their presiding
judge was out of the country and there were no scheduled hearings at
that
time is no excuse for them to absent from duty. It bears stressing that
judicial officials and employees must devote their official time to
government
service.[9]
They must exercise at all times a high degree of professionalism and
responsibility
which includes optimum performance of duties even in the absence of the
presiding judge. The Judiciary is not the place for indolence. Service
in the Judiciary is not only a duty; it is a mission. The image of a
court
of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or
otherwise,
of the men and women who work thereat; from the judge to the last and
lowest
of its employees.[10]
The Court will not countenance any act that falls short of the exacting
standards for public office.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,
(1) respondents Gregorio M. Mallare, Lydia M. Buencamino, Francisco H.
Galvez, Florante T. Natividad, Sr., Sherwin P. Bartolome, are found
guilty
of misconduct and are hereby SEVERELY REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with
more
severely; (2) the complaint against respondents Joaquin L. Caluag, Jr.,
Lucia D. Caluag, Martin Barry P. Magno, Ma. Cristina A. de Jesus, and
Walter
Estamo is DISMISSED; and (3) Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Eusebio
Barranta
is, ADMONISHED for his negligence and failure to maintain close
supervision
over his subordinates, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the
same
or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 5-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Rollo, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 8-17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Report, pp. 11-14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 11-15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Memorandum dated April 1, 2002, pp. 6-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Memorandum dated April 1, 2003, p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
SEC. 22, Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order
No. 292.
[9]
Diamante v. Alambra, 365 SCRA 531 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Bicbic v. Borromeo, 364 SCRA 762 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |