EN BANC
MELINDA F. PIMENTEL,
LEGAL RESEARCHER,REGIONAL
TRIAL
COURT,
NAGA CITY, BRANCH 27,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-02-1620
April 1, 2003
-versus-
PERPETUA
SOCORRO
M. DE LEOZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER,REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
NAGA CITY, BRANCH 27,
Respondent. |
x- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -x
ROLANDO P.
ORANTE,
PERPETUA SOCORRO M. DE LEOZ,
AND MARIA LEONORA
S. PUTO,
Complainants,
A.M.
No.
P-02-1621
April 1, 2003
-versus-
ATTY.
AMELIA B.
VARGAS,
BRANCH CLERK OF COURT,REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
NAGA CITY, BRANCH 27 ANDMELINDA F. PIMENTEL,
LEGAL RESEARCHER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,NAGA CITY, BRANCH
27,
Respondents. |
x- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -x
ATTY.
AMELIA B.
VARGAS,
BRANCH CLERK OF COURT,REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
NAGA CITY, BRANCH 27,
Complainant, |
A.M.
No.
P-02-1622
April 1, 2003
-versus-
PERPETUA
SOCORRO
M. DE LEOZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER,REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
NAGA CITY, BRANCH 27,
Respondent. |
x- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -x
PERPETUA
SOCORRO
M. DE LEOZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER,REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
NAGA CITY, BRANCH 27,
Complainant, |
A.M.
No.
P-96-1194
April 1, 2003
-versus-
MELINDA
F.
PIMENTEL,
LEGAL RESEARCHER,REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
NAGA CITY, BRANCH 27,AND ATTY. AMELIA
B. VARGAS, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT,REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
NAGA CITY, BRANCH 27,
Respondent. |
x- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
PER
CURIAM:
Before the Court are administrative
matters which involve specific charges and counter-charges filed by the
personnel of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 27.
Principally
involved are Perpetua Socorro M. De Leoz, Court Stenographer, on one
hand;
and Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Amelia B. Vargas and Legal Researcher
Melinda
F. Pimentel, on the other.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The factual antecedents
of these cases are as follows:
1. A.M. No. P-02-1620
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 95-37-P)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a sworn complaint,[1]
dated July 28, 1995, Melinda F. Pimentel, Legal Researcher of the
Regional
Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 27, charged her co-employee, Court
Stenographer
Maria Perpetua Socorro M. De Leoz, with violation of Supreme Court
Circular
No. 5-88.[2]
The complaint alleged that De Leoz was engaged in the private business
of selling undergarments and cosmetics as a result of which she
incurred
frequent absences during the months of May and June 1995. Pimentel
further
declared that De Leoz was a registered JOCKEY Sales Executive of
Finchley
Design, Inc. (Jockey Phil. Inc.) and a sales distributor of the House
of
SARA LEE.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her verified comment/answer[3]
to the complaint, De Leoz denied the allegations of Pimentel saying
that
as an employee of the court, she had served with "utmost dedication,
honesty,
punctuality, and competence." De Leoz likewise denied that she was a
sales
agent of Finchley Design, Inc., (Jockey Phils. Inc.) attaching in
support
of her denial, an affidavit[4]
of Ms. Merit R. Nollase, Network Director of Finchley Design, Inc. She
further denied working as a sales distributor for the House of SARA
LEE,
submitting an affidavit[5]
of Ms. Rosal Vergara Aton, Sales Dealer of the House of SARA LEE to
that
effect.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. A.M. No. P-02-1621
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 95-41-P)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their joint complaint[6]
dated July 26, 1995, three (3) employees of the RTC of Naga City,
Branch
27, namely: Rolando F. Orante, Perpetua Socorro M. De Leoz, and Maria
Leonora
S. Puto charged their co-employees, Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Amelia
B. Vargas and Legal Researcher Melinda F. Pimentel with "Gross
Dishonesty,
Grave Misconduct and Falsification of Official Documents" allegedly
committed
as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about the
period of April 1 to August 14, 1994, the above-named respondents
conspiring
and confederating with each other did then and there willfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously made it appear that Ms. Melinda F. Pimentel had
reported
for work during that period by submitting duly accomplished and signed
daily time records (DTRs), duly verified and also signed by Atty.
Amelia
B. Vargas, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC Branch 27, Naga City, when in
truth
and in fact she had not reported for work/office as she was then
reviewing
for the 1994 Bar Examination as the result of which Melinda F. Pimentel
received her salaries, allowances and other benefits for said period to
the damage and prejudice of the government.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
In their verified answer,[8]
Atty. Vargas and Pimentel denied the allegations and prayed for the
dismissal
of the instant case. They averred that complainants had malicious
motives
in filing the aforecited complaint. Respondent Pimentel admitted that
she
had attended a Pre-Bar Review Course at the University of Nueva
Caceres,
but stressed that said review classes were held only after office
hours.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their reply, complainants
declared that they inquired from the Leave Section, Supreme Court if
respondent
Pimentel had gone on leave from April to August 1994. The Leave Section
disclosed that as evidenced by her DTRs, duly verified and signed by
respondent
Vargas, Pimentel reported for work from April 1 to August 14, 1994, and
applied for vacation leave from August 15 to September 16, 1994.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. A.M. No. P-02-1622
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 95-45-P)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a sworn complaint[10]
dated July 28, 1995, Atty. Amelia Vargas charged Perpetua Socorro M. De
Leoz with falsifying entries in her DTRs for May and June 1995 by
making
it appear that she reported for work from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and
from
1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. during said months, when actually she was either
late or absent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her answer,[11]
De Leoz denied the allegations of Atty. Vargas, claiming that the
latter
only filed this case to harass her in view of the administrative case,
A.M. No. P-02-1621, which she and her co-employees had filed against
Atty.
Vargas and Pimentel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. A. M. No. P-96-1194
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 95-73-P)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a letter[12]
to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), dated August 28, 1995,
Perpetua Socorro M. De Leoz reported that the entries in the DTRs of
Melinda
F. Pimentel for June 19, 20, 22, 26, and 30, 1995, and for July 6, 7,
10,
and 17, 1995 were false. De Leoz alleged that during those dates,
Pimentel
merely
inserted her signature with the corresponding time in and time out to
make
it appear that she was present on those days. Then respondent Atty.
Amelia
B. Vargas certified co-respondent Pimentel’s entries on said dates in
these
DTRs by affixing her own signature thereto, according to complainant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In our Resolution of
March 13, 1996,[13]
we resolved to treat the said letter as an administrative complaint for
falsification of official documents and required the respondents to
comment
thereon. The Court likewise resolved to consolidate A.M. No. P-02-1620,
A.M. No. P-02-1621, A.M. No. P-02-1622, and A. M. No. P-96-1194.cralaw:red
On August 31, 1996,
Pimentel, Orante, De Leoz, Puto, and Atty. Vargas sent a sworn letter[14]
to the Chief Justice stating that they had finally settled their
differences,
had reconciled, and were now in a "state of harmonious relationship."
The
parties then prayed that the administrative cases filed against each
other
"be considered closed and terminated."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 17, 1997,
we resolved to refer these consolidated administrative cases to
Executive
Judge Antonio N. Gerona of the RTC of Naga City for a thorough
investigation,
report, and recommendation.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Report and Recommendation[16]
dated January 15, 1998, Judge Gerona disclosed that Perpetua Socorro M.
De Leoz had applied for optional retirement effective October 1, 1997,
and was already residing in the United States. Judge Gerona concluded
that
inasmuch as De Leoz was no longer present to testify and present
evidence
in the aforementioned cases, A.M. No. P-96-1194, A.M. No. P-02-1620,
and
A.M. No. P-02-1622 should be dismissed. Judge Gerona likewise cited the
joint letter of all the parties in all these cases requesting that A.M.
No. P-02-1621 be considered dismissed or withdrawn in view of their
having
reconciled their differences and misunderstandings. Judge Gerona then
requested
that the Court issue an order directing him to continue his
investigation
in A.M. No. P-02-1621 only.cralaw:red
In our Resolution[17]
of November 25, 1998, we denied the recommendation of Judge Gerona, and
directed that the records of all these cases be referred back to
Executive
Judge Jose T. Atienza of the RTC, Naga City for investigation, report,
and recommendation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Report[18]
dated June 30, 1999, Judge Atienza, like his predecessor, found that De
Leoz has left the country permanently and could no longer be
investigated
with respect to A.M. No. P-02-1620, A.M. No. P-02-1622, and A.M. No.
P-96-1194.
Judge Atienza then proceeded with the investigation of A.M. No.
P-02-1621.
The evidence presented by the parties at various hearings conducted at
various dates from February 23 to June 21, 1999, led Judge Atienza to
conclude
that Pimentel had indeed falsified her DTRs for the period April 1 to
August
14, 1994 and that Atty. Vargas had not only tolerated but had abetted
the
falsification. Judge Atienza then recommended that Atty. Vargas and
Pimentel
be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of benefits for
dishonesty
and falsification of a public document.cralaw:red
In its Resolution[19]
of January 19, 2000, this Court expressed its dissatisfaction with
Executive
Judge Atienza’s report and recommendation to dismiss A.M. No.
P-02-1620,
A.M. No. P-02-1622, as well as A.M. No. P-96-1194 and once more
referred
back said cases to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Naga City, for a
more
thorough investigation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her Report[20]
dated January 15, 2002, Executive Judge Corazon A. Tordilla came up
with
the identical finding that De Leoz had already permanently moved to the
United States and cannot be served with notice anymore. Executive Judge
Tordilla concluded that evidently, she was no longer interested in
pursuing
A.M. No. P-96-1194. Hence, said case should be dismissed. Judge
Tordilla
also recommended that A.M. No. P-02-1620 and A.M. No. P-02-1622 be
dismissed.
Anent A.M. No. P-02-1621 she concluded that the thorough investigation
conducted by Judge Atienza was in order.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 4, 2002, we
resolved to refer the report of Executive Judge Corazon A. Tordilla to
the OCA for evaluation, report, and recommendation.[21]
In its memorandum dated
June 3, 2002, the OCA observed that a more thorough investigation of
A.M.
No. P-02-1620 and A.M. No. P-02-1622 would be an exercise in futility,
because respondent De Leoz is no longer residing in the Philippines.
Any
further investigation in her absence would deprive her of due process,
as she would be denied the opportunity to defend herself. Hence, said
cases
must be resolved on the basis of the evidence already submitted. With
respect
to A.M. No. P-96-1194, where the allegations of De Leoz are the same as
those raised in A.M. No. P-02-1621, the former case should be deemed
included
in the investigation of the latter. The OCA then concluded that its
evaluation
should thus be limited to A.M. No. P-02-1620 and A.M. No. P-02-1622
only.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The OCA found that the
filing of A.M. Nos. P-02-1620 and P-02-1622 were retaliatory acts on
the
part of Atty. Vargas and Pimentel against De Leoz for filing an
administrative
case against them. The OCA noted that not only were the charges against
De Leoz made in bad faith, they were likewise unsubstantiated. The OCA
then recommended that said cases be dismissed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Regarding A.M. No. P-02-1621,
the OCA memorandum adopted the findings and conclusions of Executive
Judge
Atienza, but found the recommended penalty of dismissal too harsh.
Instead,
the OCA proposed that Pimentel and Vargas be suspended for a period of
six (6) months and one (1) day without pay.cralaw:red
On July 29, 2002, this
Court resolved to re-docket these cases as regular administrative
matters.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For our resolution now
are the following matters: (1) the propriety of dismissing A.M. No.
P-02-1620
and A.M. No. P-02-1622; (2) the correctness of the finding of guilt on
the part of Atty. Amelia B. Vargas and Melinda F. Pimentel for
falsification
of official documents; and (3) the appropriateness of the penalty to be
imposed, if any.cralaw:red
On the first matter,
we note that after A.M. No. P-02-1620 and A.M. No. P-02- 1622 were
consolidated,
they were referred not just once but thrice to the Executive Judge of
the
RTC of Naga City for investigation, report, and recommendation. Each of
the investigating judges found that Perpetua Socorro M. De Leoz, the
respondent
in A.M. No. P-02-1620 and A.M. No. P-02-1622, had left the country to
reside
permanently in California, and could no longer be served summons,
notices,
or other papers. In their respective reports, said investigators
recommended
that these cases be dismissed since a thorough investigation was no
longer
possible in view of the absence of respondent De Leoz.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The disciplinary power
of this Court over its erring personnel, in general, cannot be
terminated
just because one of the parties involved is now residing abroad. It is
true, however, that to allow an investigation to proceed against one
who
could no longer be in a position to defend herself would be a denial of
her right to be heard, our most basic understanding of due process.[22]
But even in the absence of respondent De Leoz, if there were sufficient
records available, and other witnesses that could have been called to
testify,
investigators could have utilized those records and those witnesses to
come out with a judicious recommendation based on the merits, rather
than
a recommendation to dismiss based solely on the absence of De Leoz.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Disciplinary proceedings
like these administrative matters, in our view, involve not merely
private
interest, nor just the redress of private grievances. More important,
they
are undertaken and prosecuted for the public welfare, i.e., to maintain
the faith and confidence of the people in the government and its
agencies
and instrumentalities. Hence, as far as feasible, they should proceed
for
the purpose of determining whether or not a respondent had erred, and
if
so, to impose the proper sanction. Otherwise, this Court’s concern that
every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity and
honesty[23]
would be hollow.cralaw:red
Nevertheless, after
carefully reviewing the records of A.M. No. P-02-1620 and A.M. No.
P-02-1622,
we agree with the observation of the OCA that the charges against De
Leoz
were filed with malice aforethought. Said cases were initiated by Atty.
Vargas and Pimentel two (2) days after De Leoz and her co-employees had
taken steps to file A.M. No. P-02-1621 against Atty. Vargas and
Pimentel
for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsification of public
documents.
Moreover, nowhere in the records do we find substantial evidence to
support
the allegations of Atty. Vargas and Pimentel, particularly with respect
to the charge that De Leoz was engaged in selling undergarments and
cosmetics
during office hours. We find, instead, that De Leoz submitted
convincing
evidence to support her defense, which Atty. Vargas and Pimentel failed
to rebut. These evidentiary matters include: (1) the 1st Indorsement
dated
October 16, 1995 by then Executive Judge David Naval of the RTC of Naga
City to the Office of Administrative Services (OAS), Supreme Court,
recommending
that her services from May to September 1995 be considered as evidence
of her service as Court Stenographer III for said period; (2) the
certification
of Merit R. Nollase, Network Director of Finchley Design, Inc.; (Jockey
Phils. Inc.) that she is not a sales agent of Jockey Phils. Inc.; and
(3)
the affidavit of the Rosal V. Aton, Sales Dealer of the House of SARA
LEE
attesting that De Leoz is not a sales representative of the House of
SARA
LEE.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the basis of the
foregoing, we find sufficient bases to hold that A.M. No. P-02-1620 and
A.M. No. P-02-1622 are contrived and unsubstantiated. The charges were
made in bad faith. They ought to be dismissed for lack of merit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the second matter,
the investigation of Judge Atienza with regard to the culpability of
Pimentel
and Atty. Vargas in A.M. No. P-02-1621 yielded the following findings,
which were concurred in by the OCA, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) In their letter
of April 28, 1995, complainants Orante, Puto, and De Leoz inquired from
Mrs. Rowena Castro-Benipayo, Chief, Leave Section, OAS, Supreme Court
if
Pimentel was on leave from April 1 to August 14, 1994 and if she
submitted
her DTRs for the period concerned as she did not report for work. On
May
16, 1995, Mrs. Benipayo replied that Pimentel did not file any
application
for leave of absence for the period April 1 to August 14, 1995 and
accordingly,
submitted her DTRs for said period;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) Judge Jose R.
Panday,
presiding judge of the RTC of Naga City, Branch 27, stated that from
April
to August 1994, he did not assign any research work to Pimentel, the
Legal
Researcher of Branch 27 as she was reviewing for the 1994 Bar
Examinations
and no longer reporting for work;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) At around 9:30 a.m.
of August 3, 1995, Remedios Genorga, Stenographer III of RTC of Naga
City,
Branch 27, discovered that the court’s attendance logbook, where the
employees
recorded their daily "ins" and "outs" was missing. Said disappearance
was
reported to the Naga City police the following morning; and
(4) Before the filing
of A.M. No. P-02-1621, the personnel of Branch 27 uniformly wrote 8:00
a.m. and 1:00 p.m. as their time in and 12:00 noon and 5:00 p.m. as
their
time out. After said case was filed, however, Atty. Vargas required
them
to write down their actual time of arrival and departure from the
office.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In view of the foregoing
findings the investigator, Judge Atienza, concluded and the OCA
concurred
that both Atty. Vargas and Pimentel should be held culpable for
dishonesty
and falsification of official documents.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In administrative cases,
the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence or such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.[24]
In A.M. No. P-02- 1621, we agree that the evidence adduced by the
complainants
at the hearing conducted by Judge Atienza was more than sufficient to
hold
respondents Pimentel and Atty. Vargas administratively liable for
dishonesty
and falsification of official documents.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We note that during
the investigation conducted by Judge Atienza, several witnesses for the
complainants testified that Pimentel either (1) did not report for
work;
or (2) did not regularly go to the office from April 1 to August 14,
1995,
but she would stay only for a few minutes or an hour.[25]
Judge Panday categorically declared that he did not assign any research
work to Pimentel as she was then on leave to review for and take the
1994
Bar Examinations.[26]
As against these positive statements, all that Pimentel could offer was
a denial. She claimed that she was reporting for work during said
period
doing research work at the University of Nueva Caceres, as the court
lacked
the necessary materials.[27]
Pimentel, however, failed to substantiate her claim. She could not even
remember what cases she was working on or the books she borrowed. Nor
could
she explain why Judge Panday testified that he did not assign her any
research
duties from April to August 1994 as she was then on leave and reviewing
for the 1994 Bar Examinations. Yet there is no showing in the evidence
that Pimentel had applied for or had gone on official leave for said
period.
In a letter, the Chief of the Leave Division, OAS, Supreme Court,
categorically
attested to the fact that Pimentel submitted her DTRs for the months of
April to August 1994. It thus appears that while Pimentel was reviewing
for the Bar Examinations, she was credited for work done on official
time
for which she was duly compensated.cralaw:red
Pimentel’s submission
of DTRs to make it appear that she was religiously reporting for work
during
said period is an act of falsification, a gross and blatant act of
dishonesty.
Not only does it reveal her deplorable lack of candor, it disturbingly
shows her disregard of office rules. Her duties and responsibilities
required
her presence at her workplace, not outside. Moreover, she unjustly
enriched
herself by receiving her salaries, allowances, and other benefits
during
said period without rendering the requisite services. Perforce, we must
sustain the recommendation of the OCA that respondent Pimentel be found
liable for dishonesty and falsification of official documents.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As for Atty. Vargas,
her signature on the falsified DTRs submitted by Pimentel is mute but
eloquent
evidence of her own role in acts of dishonesty. Note that by signing
said
DTRs, Atty. Vargas attested to the truthfulness of the entries therein
despite her knowledge of their falsity. Not only did Atty. Vargas
tolerate
or turn a blind eye to the acts of dishonesty and falsification
committed
by respondent Pimentel, she in fact abetted the accomplishment thereof.
We find particularly glaring the failure of Atty. Vargas to testify in
her defense at the investigative hearings conducted by Judge Atienza.
Surely
a person innocent of the charges pressed against her would strive hard
and seize every opportunity to prove her innocence and clear her name.
Her actuation appears contrary to that expected of a truly innocent
person,
a matter that could not escape the investigator’s attention.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The judiciary, like
other branches of government, adheres strictly to the policy of the
State
promoting a high standard of ethics in the public service. No less than
the Constitution mandates that a public office is a public trust and
public
officers must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them
with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with
patriotism
and justice, and lead modest lives.[28]
We have held that the conduct and behavior of a person connected with
the
dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the humblest
clerk,
is circumscribed by the heavy burden of responsibility.[29]
Her conduct should at all times be characterized by propriety and
decorum,
and be like Caesar’s wife, beyond suspicion. As Clerk of Court of
Branch
27, Atty. Vargas is a ranking officer of the judiciary, performing
delicate
administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper administration
of justice.[30]
As administrative assistant to the presiding judge, a Clerk of Court
occupies
a delicate and confidential position, which should be honored rather
than
betrayed. She is required to be a person of competence, honesty and
probity.
Her responsibility includes safeguarding the integrity of the court and
its proceedings, to earn respect therefor, to maintain the authenticity
and correctness of court records, and to uphold the confidence of the
public
in the administration of justice.[31]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As Clerk of Court, Atty.
Vargas has the duty to see to it that the data in the DTRs certified by
her office and submitted to the Supreme Court is true and accurate. By
abetting the acts of falsification committed by Pimentel, she acted in
disregard of her sworn duties and obligations. She fell short of the
exacting
standards for public office. Her failure to live up to these standards
of responsibility, uprightness, and honesty surely warrants
disciplinary
action. For this Court cannot countenance any conduct, act, or omission
on the part of those involved in the administration of justice which
will
violate the norms of public accountability and diminish, or tend to
diminish,
the faith of the people in the judicial system.[32]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Coming now to the imposable
penalties, Judge Atienza, in his report, recommended that both Pimentel
and Vargas be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of benefits.
The
OCA, however, finds the penalty of dismissal too harsh and recommends
that
Pimentel and Atty. Vargas be suspended for six (6) months and one (1)
day
without pay. Considering the nature and circumstances of this matter,
we
are constrained to agree with Judge Atienza’s recommendation.cralaw:red
The tampering of DTRs
constitutes acts of falsification of official documents,[33]
as well as dishonesty and duplicity, which deserve appropriate sanction
from this Court.[34]
Under Section 23 (a) and (f)[35]
of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing Book V of Executive
Order
No. 292,[36]
falsification of official documents is a grave offense punishable by
dismissal
from the service even for the first offense. This Court has not
hesitated
to dismiss an erring employee of the judiciary found guilty of
falsification
of DTRs.[37]
In recommending a lighter penalty, the OCA has not cited any reason or
basis for its recommendation. We find that the penalty as recommended
by
the OCA applies to frequent unauthorized absences, provided for in
Section
23 (q)[38]
of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing Book V of Executive
Order
No. 292. We note, however, that in A.M. No. P-02-1621, the complaint
against
respondents Pimentel and Atty. Vargas was not for unauthorized absences
but for "gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsification of
official
document."[39]
In the report of Judge Atienza concurred in by the OCA, both Pimentel
and
Atty. Vargas were found culpable not for unauthorized absences, but for
dishonesty and falsification of official documents. Harsh as the
penalty
may be, it is the penalty provided for the offense by law and this
Court
has no option but to apply the law which calls for dismissal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in A.M. No.
P-02-1621, entitled Rolando F. Orante, Perpetua Socorro M. De Leoz, and
Maria Leonora S. Puto v. Atty. Amelia B. Vargas and Melinda F.
Pimentel,
respondents ATTY. AMELIA B. VARGAS, Branch Clerk of Court, Regional
Trial
Court of Naga City, Branch 27, and MELINDA F. PIMENTEL, Legal
Researcher,
Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 27, are found GUILTY of
dishonesty
and falsification of official documents, and are hereby ordered
DISMISSED
FROM THE SERVICE, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave
credits; as well as with prejudice to reemployment in the government
including
government-owned and controlled corporations.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In A.M. No. P-02-1620,
entitled Melinda F. Pimentel v. Perpetua Socorro M. De Leoz, and A.M.
No.
P-02-1622, entitled Atty. Amelia B. Vargas v. Perpetua Socorro M. De
Leoz,
the complaints are DISMISSED for lack of merit. In A.M. No.
P-96-1194,
entitled Perpetua Socorro M De Leoz v. Melinda F. Pimentel and Atty.
Amelia
B. Vargas, the complaint is likewise DISMISSED, for failure of
complainant
to pursue her complaint.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr.,
C.J.
,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio- Morales,
Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna,
JJ.
, concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo (OCA IPI No. 95-37-P), pp. 1-2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
The Circular reads in full:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
TO
: ALL
OFFICIALS
AND EMPLOYEES OF THE JUDICIARY
SUBJECT:
PROHIBITION TO WORK AS INSURANCE AGENT
In line with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules,
the Executive Department issued Memorandum Circular No. 17 dated
September
4, 1986 authorizing heads of government offices to grant their
employees
permission to "engage directly in any private business, vocation or
profession
x x x outside of office hours."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, in its En Banc Resolution dated October 1, 1987, denying the
request
of Atty. Froilan L. Valdez of the Office of Associate Justice Ameurfina
Melencio-Herrera to be commissioned as a Notary Public, the Court
expressed
the view that the provisions of Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the
Executive
Department are not applicable to officials or employees of the courts
considering
the express prohibition in the Rules of Court and the nature of their
work
which requires them to serve with the highest degree of efficiency and
responsibility, in order to maintain public confidence in the
Judiciary.
The same policy was adopted in Administrative Matter No. 88-6-002-SC,
June
21, 1988, where the court denied the request of Ms. Esther C. Rabanal,
Technical Assistant II, Leave Section, Office of the Administrative
Services
of this Court, to work as an insurance agent after office hours
including
Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Indeed, the entire time of Judiciary
officials and employees must be devoted to government service to insure
efficient and speedy administration of justice.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ACCORDINGLY, all officials and employees of the Judiciary are hereby
enjoined
from being commissioned as insurance agents or from engaging in any
such
related activities, and, to immediately desist therefrom if presently
engaged
thereat.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Supra, note 1 at 34-36.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Rollo (OCA IPI NO. 95-41-P), p. 4.
[7]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 37-41.
[9]
Id. at 67.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Rollo (OCA IPI No. 95-45-P), pp. 1-2.
[11]
Supra, note 10 at 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Rollo (Adm. Matter No. P-96-1194), p. 3.
[13]
Id. at 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id. at 18.
[15]
Id. at 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Rollo (OCA IPI No. 95-37-P), pp. 94-96.
[17]
Id. at 264.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Rollo (OCA IPI No. 95-41-P), pp. 433-450.
[19]
Rollo (OCA IPI No. 95-37-P), p. 278.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Rollo (OCA IPI No. 95-45-P), pp. 112-114.
[21]
Rollo (OCA IPI No. 95-41-P), p. 465.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Paulino I. Saguyod, A.M.
Nos.
P-96-1229-30, March 25, 2002, p. 8.
[23]
Estreller v. Manatad, Jr., 335 Phil. 1077, 1086 (1997).
[24]
Mercado v. Casida, A.M. No. P-02-1572, April 24, 2002, p. 4.
[25]
See for instance, TSN, 23 February 1999, pp. 6-7 (Achilles Regalado);
TSN,
23 February 1999, pp. 14-15 (Marie Jeanne Villareal-Miraflores); TSN, 7
April 1999, pp. 31-35 (Rolando F. Orante).
[26]
TSN, 3 March 1999, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
TSN, 26 April 1999, pp. 24-25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
CONST. Art. XI, Sec. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Re: Absence Without Official Leave of Jacoba, 362 Phil. 486, 489
(1999),
citing Re: Report on Habitual Absenteeism of Ms. Sabido, 312 Phil. 513,
517 (1995); Mirano v. Saavedra, A.M. No. P-89-383, 4 August 1993, 225
SCRA
77; Annang v. Vda. de Blas, A.M. No. P-91-602, 15 October 1991, 202
SCRA
635.
[30]
Reyes-Domingo v. Morales, A.M. No. P-99-1285, 4 October 2000, 342 SCRA
6, 15.
[31]
Rudas v. Acedo, 317 Phil. 283, 292 (1995).
[32]
Report of the Financial Audit of Zenaida Garcia, 362 Phil. 480, 485
(1999).
[33]
Marbas-Vizcarra v. Bernardo, A.M. No. P-99-1336 (formerly OCA-IPI No.
95-11-P),
6 February 2001, 351 SCRA 219, 225.
[34]
Anonymous v. Geverola, 344 Phil. 688, 698 (1997).
[35]
SEC. 23. Administrative offenses with its (sic) corresponding penalties
are classified into grave, less grave, and light, depending on the
gravity
of its (sic) nature and effects of said acts on the government service.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
following are grave offenses with corresponding penalties:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a)
Dishonestychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1st
Offense - Dismissal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
xxxchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(f)
Falsification of official documentchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1st
Offense - Dismissal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
The Administrative Code of 1987.
[37]
Clerk of Court Marbas-Vizcarra v. Florendo, 369 Phil. 840, 850 (1999).
[38]
SEC. 23. Administrative offenses with its (sic) corresponding penalties
are classified into grave, less grave, and light, depending on the
gravity
of its (sic) nature and effects of said acts on the government service.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
following are grave offenses with corresponding penalties:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
xxxchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(q)
Frequent unauthorized absences or tardiness in reporting for duty,
loafing
or frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours.
1st
Offense - Suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2nd
Offense - Dismissalchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
An officer or employee in the civil service shall be considered
habitually
absent if he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5
days
monthly leave credit under the Leave Law for at least three (3) months
in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive months during the year.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
An employee shall considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness
regardless
of the number of minutes, ten (10) times for at least two (2) months in
a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year. In
case
of claim of ill-health, heads of department of agencies are encouraged
to verify the validity of such claim, and if not satisfied with the
reason
given, should disapprove the application for sick leave. On the other
hand,
cases of employees who absent themselves from work before approval of
the
application should be disapproved outright.
In the discretion of the Head of any department, agency, or office, any
government physician may be authorized to do a spot check on employees
who are supposed to be on sick leave.
[39]
Rollo (OCA IPI No. 95-41-P), p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |