THIRD DIVISION
ACTING EXECUTIVE
JUDGE HENRI JP INTING,
Complainant,
A.
M.
No. P-03-1707
(formerly OCA
IPI No.
99-627-P)
July 27, 2004
-versus-
LANI D. BORJA,
COURT
STENOGRAPHER,MeTC,
BRANCH 33,
QUEZON CITY,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
The facts which spawned
the filing of the complaint at bar are as follows:
In a Sinumpaang Salaysay/Sumbong[1]
dated February 5, 1998, Abdal M. Sarip (Sarip) charged Jimmy Maruhom
(Maruhom),
a Sheriff of the Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), with
Dishonesty
and Misconduct arising from the alleged act of Maruhom in
misrepresenting
himself, along with one Robert Paudac, of being an agent of one Nelia
Valera
from whom he (Sarip), upon being convinced by Maruhom, purchased a
house
in Holy Spirit, Quezon City which was eventually demolished as having
been
illegally constructed on a lot said to belong to Tambunting Realty
Corporation.cralaw:red
After Maruhom filed
a Comment[2]
to Sarip’s complaint denying the charges, this Court, by Resolution of
March 7, 2001,[3]
referred the case to the Quezon City MeTC Executive Judge for
investigation,
report and recommendation.cralaw:red
The MeTC Executive Judge
accordingly scheduled the case for investigation. On May 28,
2001,
Sarip took the witness stand. The stenographic notes of his
testimony
were not transcribed, however, as by Explanation dated June 26, 2001[4]
of Lani D. Borja of Branch 33 of the MeTC who took the notes, the
backpack
in which she placed them was snatched in the evening of June 21, 2001
by
an unidentified man while she was on her way home on board a jeepney
bound
for Balic Balic, Sampaloc, Manila. To Borja’s Explanation was
attached
a photocopy of a June 22, 2001 “ALARM REPORT”[5]
recorded by SPO1 Jessie N. Oliveros of the Sampaloc Police reflecting
the
complaint of Borja about the snatching on June 21, 2001 at 6:30
p.m.
The “ALARM REPORT” reads:chanrobles virtual law library
NATURE OF
THE
CASE : ROBBERY (SNATCHING) P300.00chanrobles virtual law library
COMPLAINANT : LANI
D.
BORJA Y DUCOT, 42 yrs old, married, employee, and res. At 742 T.
Anzures
St., Sampaloc, Manila.
LOSSES : One black
backpack
bag, containing the ff:
1. Cash Money
worth
P300.00 placed inside a ladies maroon wallet.
2. One pc. ATM
Card
(Allied Bank)
3. Pertinent
Documents,
etc.
SUSPECTS : FOUR
(4)
malefactors, whose description were not given.
DATE/TIME/PLACEOF
OCCURRENCE : June 21, 2001 at around 6:30 p.m. committed inside the
passenger
jeepney located along J. Fajardo St., Governor Forbes St., Samp.,
Manila.
- - - - - -
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
FACTS OF
THE
CASE:
Complainant
personally
came to this station and reported the aforecited case for investigation.
It appears that on
or
about the 22nd day of June 2001 at around 6:30 p.m. while complainant
was
on board a Balic-Balic bound passenger jeepney located along J. Fajardo
St., Sampaloc, Manila, when one of the suspects who was then hanging
flambouyantly
at the rear end of the jeepney, suddenly snatched her backpack bag
containing
the aforecited losses. Once in possession, suspect, together with
his cohorts, hurriedly jumped off and fled with the loot in unknown
destination.
Complainant
further
avers that she was not able to recognized the suspects because it was
already
dark and their heads/faces were outside the jeepney as they were moving
towards the direction of Balic-Balic Sampaloc, Manila.
In view thereof,
this
case will be placed under further investigation and follow-up.
(Underscoring
supplied.)
The MeTC Executive
Judge,
by letter to this Court dated July 3, 2001,[6]
sought an extension of the period to file his report on the case
against
Maruhom on account of the retaking of the testimony of Sarip due to the
loss of the stenographic notes of his (Sarip’s) original
testimony.
Despite the scheduling and rescheduling of the retaking of Sarip’s
testimony,
Sarip never showed up.chanrobles virtual law library
By order of February
5, 2002,[7]
the MeTC Executive Judge forwarded the record of the case against
Maruhom
to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) “for further
proceedings”
in light of the failure to retake the testimony of Sarip owing to his
failure
to appear.cralaw:red
The OCA thereupon evaluated
the case and by Memorandum of April 21, 2003,[8]
it found the accusation against Maruhom as bereft of merit in light of
the observations made therein.cralaw:red
With respect to the
loss of the stenographic notes, now the subject of the present
decision,
the OCA recommended that it be treated as a separate administrative
case,
for negligence, against stenographer Lani D. Borja; and that
since
she had already been “given the chance to explain her side per her
letter-explanation
dated 2[6], June 2001 admitting that she lost the subject stenographic
notes on June 21, 2001 but claiming good faith, such explanation must
be
considered as a sufficient compliance [with] the requirement of due
process.”
On the merits of the
case against Borja, the OCA found that she “is undeniably
administratively
liable for negligence, it appearing that she failed to ask prior
permission
from her immediate supervisor to bring home the court records and to
provide
proper protection and measure to prevent the loss of the same record
while
in transit.” The OCA hastened to suggest, however, that she be
held
liable for Simple Neglect of Duty and that since this was her first
offense,
her liability may be reduced.cralaw:red
Accordingly, the OCA
recommended as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
1.
The
instant complaint against Sheriff Dipangampong R. Maruhom, MeTC, OCC,
Quezon
City, be DISMISSED for lack of merit;
2. The
letter-report
dated 03 July 2001 of then Acting Executive Judge Jenri JP Inting,
MeTC,
Branch 33, Quezon City reporting the loss of the stenographic notes
taken
during the hearing on 28 May 2001 be docketed as a separate
administrative
case against Court Stenographer Lani D. Borja, MeTC, Branch 33, Quezon
City;chanrobles virtual law library
3. The
letter-explanation
dated 26 June 2001 of Court Stenographer Lani D. Borja, MeTC, Branch
33,
Quezon City admitting that she lost the subject notes on 21 June 2001
when
her back pack bag was suddenly snatched by an unknown male person while
she was inside a public utility jeepney bounded for Balic-Balic,
Sampaloc,
be noted.chanrobles virtual law library
4. Court
Stenographer
Lani D. Borja, MeTC, Branch 33, Quezon City, be found guilty of
negligence
for failure to ask prior permission from her immediate superior to
bring
at home court records and for failure to provide proper protection and
measure to prevent the loss of the same record and she be meted the
penalty
of suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day without pay with a
WARNING
that a repetition of similar act in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
By Resolution of June
9,
2003,[9]
this Court Resolved to adopt the first three immediately quoted
recommendations
of the OCA, and Required Borja and the MeTC Executive Judge to manifest
within twenty (20) days from notice whether they are submitting the
case
for resolution on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed and
submitted. In compliance with this Court’s directive, Borja filed
a Manifestation dated October 2, 2003[10]
declaring as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
In compliance with the
Honorable Court’s resolution dated June 9, 2003, the undersigned
respectfully
manifest the following:
That on
June
21, 2001 at around 6:30 in the evening, the undersigned boarded a
jeepney
bounded for Balic-Balic, in the vicinity of J. Fajardo Street, Sampaloc
Manila;
A male person
boarded
that same jeepney at the rear exit thereof. Suddenly, that male
person
grabbed and stolen (sic) the backpack bag of the undersigned where her
stenographic notes for the hearing of OCA IPI No. 99-627-P, Abdal M.
Sarip
vs. Dipangampong R. Maruhom, held on May 28, 2001, was kept for
purposes
of transcribing the sane (sic) in her house due to heavy loads.
Proof of this
event
is the duplicate original of the Police Report executed by Police
Investigator
Jessie N. Oliveros and appended as Annex “A.”
Henceforth,
undersigned
remains hopeful that the Court shall find her manifestation meritorious
and the case filed against her be Dismissed.
Simple Neglect of Duty
has been defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to a
task
expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from
carelessness
or indifference.[11]
That Borja failed to priorly seek the authority of her immediate
superior
to bring home the stenographic notes and to safeguard them reflect her
disregard of a duty arising from carelessness or indifference.chanrobles virtual law library
The recommendation of
the OCA to fault Lani D. Borja for Simple Negligence of Duty is thus
well-taken.
And so is the recommended penalty, this being Borja’s first
offense.
For Section 19 of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19,
s. 1999 classifies Simple Neglect of Duty as a less grave offense and
imposes
the penalty, for the first offense, of suspension for One (1) Month and
One (1) Day to Six (6) Months without pay.[12]
WHEREFORE, respondent
LANI D. BORJA, Stenographer of Branch 33 of the Metropolitan Trial
Court
of Quezon City, is hereby found guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and is
hereby suspended without pay for One (1) Month and One (1) Day, with
warning
that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more
strictly.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Panganiban, J., (Chairman),
Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ.,
concur.
Corona, J., on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 6-7.
[2]
Id. at 13.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Id. at 67.
[4]
Id. at 144.
[5]
Id. at 145.
[6]
Id. at 147.
[7]
Id. at 232.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Id. at 246-251.
[9]
Id. at 252-253.
[10]
Id. at 257.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Acting Presiding Judge Leopoldo Cañete v. Nelson Manlosa, A.M.
No.
P-02-1547, October 3, 2003, citing Philippine Retirement Authority v.
Rupa,
363 SCRA 480, (2001).
[12]
Nery v. Gumolo, 397 SCRA 110, 118 (2003).chanrobles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library |