FIRST DIVISION
JUDGE RAPHAEL B.
YRASTORZA, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
BRANCH 14, CEBU CITY,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-02-1610
(formerly A.M.
OCA
IPI No. 02-1318-P)
November 27, 2003
-versus-
MICHAEL A.
LATIZA,
COURT AIDE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 14, CEBU
CITY,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO,
J.:
The Facts
Judge Raphael B. Yrastorza,
Sr. ("Judge Yrastorza"), presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Cebu City, Branch 14 ("RTC-Branch 14"), issued Office Memo No. 3 dated
22 August 2001 ("Memo") addressed to respondent Michael A. Latiza
("respondent"),
Court Aide of the same court. The Memo stated that respondent was
absent
for work without leave on 13, 20, 21, and 22 August 2001 and did not
notify
the office of the reason for such absences. The co-employees of
respondent
saw him at the Palace of Justice loitering and reeking of liquor.
Respondent's
actuations being detrimental to the service, Judge Yrastorza gave
respondent
seventy-two hours from receipt of the Memo to explain why no
disciplinary
action should be taken against him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her Affidavit dated
29 August 2001, Cecilia A. Deguilmo ("Deguilmo"), Clerk of Court V of
RTC-Branch
14, stated that on 13 August 2001 respondent was absent without filing
an application for leave. Deguilmo also stated that respondent did not
inform the office of the cause for his absence. Deguilmo further stated
that on 20 August 2001 respondent did not show up for work from 8:00
a.m.
to 12:00 noon but went to the office at past noontime to get something
from his office drawer. Deguilmo noticed respondent to be "unusually
flushed
in the face (reddened) and that he reeked with liquor." Deguilmo stated
that respondent then left the office without a word. Lastly, Deguilmo
stated
that from 20 August 2001 up to 24 August 2001, respondent was again
absent
without submitting an application for leave of absence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her Affidavit dated
29 August: 2001, Desiree A. Salvador ("Salvador"), Stenographer of the
same court, stated that on 20 August 2001, respondent was at the main
door
inside the Palace of Justice. Salvador took the occasion to remind
respondent
of his unpaid bill for long distance calls he made using the office
phone.
Salvador noticed that respondent's face was red, his eyes were "sleepy"
and he smelled of liquor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 29 August 2001, respondent,
with the assistance of Atty. Elisa Porio ("Atty. Porio") of the Public
Attorney's Office, submitted a written explanation that he was "under
emotional
stress" and could hardly sleep well "because of some family problems."
Respondent admitted his absences from 20 August to 24 August 2001
"because
my 8-month-old child had a fever and I had barely enough money to spend
for our food and medicines." Respondent admitted that he was at the
vicinity
of the Palace of Justice on 20 August 2001 because he was looking for
moneylenders
who could extend credit to him. Respondent admitted he had a "few
drinks
at home" before he went to the Palace of Justice because "it was the
only
way where I could approach moneylenders courageously and without
shame."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his written explanation,
respondent claimed he sent his wife to the office on 24 August 2001 to
inform the clerk of court of the reason for his absence. Respondent
also
claimed that he prepared his application for leave for 20 August 2001
to
24 August 2001. However, respondent alleged that he was not able to
submit
his leave application sooner for approval because he could not produce
a medical certificate for his son whom he did not bring to a doctor for
lack of money. Respondent likewise admitted that he forgot to file his
application for leave of absence for 13 August 2001. Respondent asked
for
compassion and understanding of his present predicament. Attached to
his
explanation were his applications for leave of absence for 13, 20, 21,
22, 23 and 24 August 2001, which he submitted for approval by the
presiding
judge.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 8 September 2001,
Judge Yrastorza issued a Memorandum appointing Legal Researcher Teotimo
Vallar II, Stenographer Elizabeth Morata and Clerk III Grace Pauline
Llido,
all of RTC-Branch 14, as members of a Panel of Investigators ("Panel")
to receive evidence on this case and report thereon. Atty. Porio
represented
respondent. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Findings and
Recommendations
of the Panel of Investigators
The Panel submitted
on 19 October 2001 the following findings:
(1) That
Michael
Latiza is the incumbent Court Aide of RTC Branch 14, Cebu City;
(2) That on 13
August
2001, respondent absented himself from work without permission, without
filing his leave of absence;
(3) That again
starting
20 August 2001, he absented himself from work without filing his
Application
for Leave, without asking prior permission;
(4) That on the
same
date, 20 August 2001, at past 12:00 noon, respondent came to RTC Branch
14 inebriated (as admitted), he was likewise seen at the vicinity of
the
main door of the Palace of Justice loitering between 1:30 to 2:00 P.M.,
in the same condition;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(5) That
respondent
absented himself from work starting 20 August 2001 up to 24 August 2001
or for the entire week and it was only on 24 August 2001 when
respondent's
wife came to inform the office of the absence of respondent; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(6) That it was
only
on 27 August 2001 that respondent filed his application for leave for
all
the aforesaid absences (Exh. "1-A" and "1-B").[1]
The Panel likewise
submitted
on 25 November 2001 its recommendations. On the charge of absences
without
filing an application for leave, the Panel recommended the exoneration
of respondent since there was substantial compliance when respondent
submitted
his applications for leave of absence on 27 August 2001, although late.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the charge of drunkenness
during office hours which occurred at past 12:00 noon to 2:00 p.m. of
20
August 2001, the Panel opined that respondent was technically absent
and
not on duty. The Panel stated that respondent did not commit irrational
acts but merely exhibited flushed or red face and sleepy eyes, and
smelled
of liquor. The Panel, however, found respondent guilty of simple
misconduct
and recommended that respondent be meted the penalty of one-month
suspension
without pay. The Panel observed that respondent acted with arrogance
and
disrespect in entering the Palace of Justice reeking of liquor. Before
this, respondent displayed himself at the main door of the Palace of
Justice
doing nothing as if idling his time away. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the Resolution dated
11 January 2002, Judge Yrastorza approved the Findings and
Recommendations
of the Panel that respondent be held liable for arrogance and
disrespect
and for simple misconduct. He directed the forwarding of the entire
records
of this case to the Office of the Court Administrator ("OCA") for
"possible
review and implementation."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
OCA Report and
Recommendation
OCA agreed with the
finding of the Panel that respondent is guilty of simple misconduct.
OCA
opined that basic decorum demands that court employees behave in a
manner
that would protect the integrity of the courts and promote public
confidence
in the judiciary. Respondent should be mindful that when he showed up
drunk
at the Palace of Justice on 20 August 2001, he ignored the negative
impact
his misconduct caused his co-employees and the public present at that
time.
OCA recommended the suspension of respondent for one month and one day
without pay for simple misconduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court's Ruling
In the Resolution of
19 February 2003, the Court required the parties to manifest if they
were
willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed.
Judge Yrastorza manifested that he was submitting the case for
resolution
based on the pleadings and records on file. Likewise, in a letter dated
24 March 2003 addressed to the Court Administrator, Judge Yrastorza
manifested
that respondent had not been reporting for work since 10 February 2003
and thus respondent could no longer submit a manifestation. Judge
Yrastorza
further averred that respondent reported to the judge's office only to
submit a letter of resignation dated 19 March 2003, his resignation to
take effect on the same date.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a letter dated 18
February 2003 addressed to the Court Administrator, Atty. Aurora
Ventura-Villamor,
Branch Clerk of Court of RTC-Branch 14, stated that respondent had been
absent without leave since 10 February 2003 without any explanation.
Atty.
Ventura-Villamor's letter also stated that respondent did not submit
his
Daily Time Record for January 2003. The letter further stated that
money
amounting to P118,040 inside an attaché case was found to be
short
of P24,800. The money, kept in the locked steel storage cabinet of the
office of the branch clerk of court, was presented as evidence in
Criminal
Case No. CBU-50474 entitled People of the Philippines v. Danilo Ceniza.
In her letter, Atty. Ventura-Villamor stated that respondent admitted
liability
for the loss of the amount, and that the police was investigating the
matter.
Atty. Ventura-Villamor, as branch clerk, requested the withholding of
respondent's
salary.cralaw:red
On 14 October 2003,
the Court En Banc issued a Resolution in A.M. No. 03-10-576-RTC
accepting
the resignation of respondent, without prejudice to the outcome of the
proceedings in the administrative complaint against him. The Court
further
directed the Financial Management Office of OCA to withhold P50,000
from
whatever benefits might be due respondent. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, in the instant
administrative case, the only issue for resolution is whether
respondent
is guilty of the charges of unauthorized absences and of drunkenness
amounting
to simple misconduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the charge of unauthorized
absences, respondent was admittedly absent on 13, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24
August 2001. He belatedly filed his application for leave of absence on
27 August 2001. There is no showing of any deliberate intent to defy
office
rules on absences. In his letter to Judge Yrastorza, respondent claimed
that on 27 August 2001, he prepared his application for emergency
leave.
However, respondent claimed that he was not able to submit the
application
sooner for approval because he could not produce a medical certificate
for the illness of his son. Respondent likewise admitted that, due to
inadvertence,
he forgot to file his application for leave of absence for 13 August
2001.
Respondent attached to the letter his applications for leave of
absence.
Respondent further stated that on 24 August 2001, he sent his wife to
the
office to inform the clerk of court of the reason for his absence. We
agree
with OCA that there was substantial compliance by the belated filing of
the applications for leave of absence. However, under the Civil Service
rules,[2]
an employee should submit in advance, whenever possible, an application
for vacation leave of absence for action by the proper chief of agency
prior to the effective date of such leave.[3]
On the other hand, an employee should file an application for sick
leave
of absence immediately upon his return from such leave.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the charge of drunkenness,
respondent appeared at the Palace of Justice reeking of liquor. He went
to the office without any word or without even talking to the clerk of
court who is his superior. Before this, respondent displayed himself at
the main door of the Palace of Justice doing nothing. Even if he was on
leave of absence, respondent remained an employee of the court duty
bound
to observe proper decorum especially within court premises.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Court employees bear
the burden of observing exacting standards of ethics and morality. This
is the price one pays for the honor of working in the judiciary. Those
who are part of the machinery dispensing justice, from the lowliest
clerk
to the presiding judge, must conduct themselves with utmost decorum and
propriety to maintain the public's faith and respect for the judiciary.
Improper behavior, particularly during office hours, exhibits not only
a paucity of professionalism at the workplace but also a great
disrespect
to the court itself. Such demeanor is a failure of circumspection
demanded
of every public official and employee.[4]
It is of no moment whether respondent was on leave when he went to the
Palace of Justice. For his improper behavior, respondent is guilty of
simple
misconduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under the Uniform Rules
on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[5]
the penalty for simple misconduct for a first offender is suspension
for
one month and one day to six months.[6]
However, since respondent has tendered his resignation effective 19
March
2003 and the Court in its En Banc Resolution of 14 October 2003
approved
respondent's resignation, his suspension is no longer possible. Thus,
in
lieu of suspension, a fine of P5,000 is in order.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, we find respondent
Michael A. Latiza guilty of simple misconduct and fine him Five
Thousand
Pesos (P5,000). This amount may be deducted from whatever benefits
respondent
is still entitled after his voluntary resignation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Panganiban,
Ynares-Santiago and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
P. 3, thereof.
[2]
Sec. 16, Rule XVI, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order
No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws.
[3]
Sec. 15, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Gratela v. Yonzon, Jr., 326 Phil. 595 (1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
31 August 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Rule IV, Section 52 (B) (2).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|