Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > September 1975 Decisions > A.M. No. P-170 September 10, 1975 - JOSE P. GENIO v. PEDRO R. ABONALES:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. P-170. September 10, 1975.]

JUDGE JOSE P. GENIO, Complainant, v. PEDRO R. ABONALES, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Respondent clerk-stenographer was denounced for incompetence, abandonment and dereliction of duty, dishonesty and immorality. The complainant judge alleged that respondent has no knowledge of stenography; that he had not reported for work and abandoned his post for four months without any proper advice to the court; that he withdrew his salary without rendering any service or filing the appropriate leave of absence; and that he cohabited with a woman not his wife be getting two children by her but without giving them the needed support. Despite notices sent to him, respondent failed to appear at the scheduled hearing and on the day he said he would appear according to his wife. Hence, the investigation of the administrative case proceeded ex parte. The investigating judge found him guilty as charged, with the recommendation that he be dismissed from the service with prejudice to reinstatement.

The Supreme Court affirmed the recommendation.


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT; INVESTIGATION MAY PROCEED EX PARTE, WHERE RESPONDENT DESPITE NOTICES FAILED TO APPEAR. — Where respondent, in an administrative case, was duly notified as many times as there were scheduled hearings, personally and through his wife, and, despite such notices, failed to appear during the investigation to refute the charges against him and to present evidence, he was to blame, if the formal investigation proceeded ex parte. He was afforded his day in court.

2. ID.; INCOMPETENCE; INABILITY OF STENOGRAPHER TO TAKE DOWN STENOGRAPHIC NOTES. — Where it is down that the respondent clerk-stenographer could not take down proceedings in stenographic notes, and does not make himself available in court to perform his duties as stenographer, and that obviously he secured his appointment through deceit and patronage, his lack of the requisite qualification for the position of clerk-stenographer is sufficient warrant for dismissal.

3. ID.; DERELICTION OF DUTY. — A clerk stenographer who fails to comply with the directive of his presiding judge to produce the records of a criminal case is guilty of dereliction of duty.

4. ID.; ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE. — A clerk-stenographer who is frequently absent from office, and fails to give his whereabouts thus necessitating the services of another employee, is guilty of abandonment of office.

5. ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO FILE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE. — The act of clerk-stenographer in ignoring simple office rules and regulations like the filing of application for leave of absence, which every civil service employee must know or his failure to inform his superiors of his absence and the reason therefor not only is irresponsibility of the highest order, but also constitutes abandonment of office.

6. ID.; DUTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS. — Every officer or employee of the government is under obligation to discharge the duties of his office with diligence and integrity and with an overriding concern to promote public interest. An employee’s gross neglect of duty and serious misconduct in office warrant his removal from office.

7. ID.; DISHONESTY; COLLECTION OF SALARY WITHOUT RENDERING REQUIRED SERVICE. — A public officer or employee who tries to collect his salary for the period during which did not render the required service, by including said period in his time record is guilty of dishonesty.

8. ID.; IMMORALITY; AGGRIEVED PARTY FAILS TO SWEAR TO COMPLAINT. — The charge of immorality merits no serious consideration where the alleged aggrieved party refused to subscribe and swear to her complaint as required by Sec. 12, Civil Service Act of 1959, as amended.


D E C I S I O N


MAKASIAR, J.:


In a letter-complaint dated February 1, 1973, Municipal Judge Jose P. Genio of Ragay, Camarines Sur, denounced his clerkstenographer, Pedro R. Abonales, for incompetence, abandonment and dereliction of duty, dishonesty and immorality.

Judge Genio alleged that respondent Abonales has no Knowledge of stenography; that he never reported for work since October 1, 1972, abandoning his post without any proper advice to the court; that he committed serious acts of dishonesty of withdrawing his salary without rendering any service, and/or without filing the appropriate leave of absence, and/or submitting daily time records which he reconstructed covering the period from July to December, 1970 and November and December, 1971, without the necessary verification or countersignature by the Municipal Judge; and that he cohabited with a woman who is not his wife begetting two children by her out without giving them the needed support.

This letter-complaint was referred to District Judge Abelardo Dayrit, CFI of Camarines Sur, Naga City for investigation, report and recommendation (3rd Indorsement dated May 30, 1973, p. 4, rec.), who set the case for hearing on July 13, 24, 27 and 28, 1973.

The respondent was duly notified of the scheduled hearings. In a certification dated July 11, 1973, the office of the chief of police of Ragay, Camarines Sur, certified that the notice of hearing scheduled for July 13, 1973 could not be served on respondent because he could not be contacted in Ragay, as he was already residing in Lopez, Quezon. On July 13,1973, Judge Dayrit directed his branch clerk of court to issue another subpoena to be served on respondent by the chiefs of police of Ragay and of Lopez, ordering them to serve the notice of hearing which was re-set to July 24, 1973 (pp. 30-31, rec.). The return of the office of the chief of police of Lopez; Quezon (p. 38, rec.) shows that two attempts to serve the subpoena failed because the respondent was somewhere in Manila. However, his legitimate wife, Mrs. Socorro A. Abonales, and daughter were notified of the date of hearing scheduled on July 24,1973 at 8:30 A.M. Mrs. Abonales, who refused to accept the notice of hearing and the court order, stated that her husband would appear at the hearing either on the 27th or 28th of July, 1973.

The respondent failed to appear at the scheduled hearings and on the day he said he would appear according to his wife, and the investigation of this administrative case proceeded ex-parte (p. 99, rec.).

After the ex parte investigation, the Inquest Judge submitted his investigation report dated August 7, 1973 finding the respondent guilty of incompetence, abandonment of office and dereliction of duty as well as of dishonesty but exonerating him of immorality, with the recommendation that he be dismissed from the service with prejudice to reinstatement.

On the procedural standpoint, if the formal investigation proceeded ex parte, respondent was to blame. Duly notified as many times as there were scheduled hearings, personally and thru his wife and daughter in Ragay, Camarines Sur, and in Lopez, Quezon, he did not appear during the investigation to refute the charges against him and to present his defense. The respondent was afforded his day in court. Indeed, after the formal investigation was finally concluded and up to the present, this Court received no word from respondent, personally or in writing, refuting the charges leveled against him or controverting the evidence presented against him or contesting the findings and recommendation of the Inquest Judge.

The findings and recommendation of the Inquest Judge are fully substantiated by the evidence.

The respondent is guilty of incompetence. He does not know stenography. The complainant testified that since March 22, 1972 when he assumed office as Municipal Judge, he found that the previous proceedings in his court were not taken down in stenographic notes. As clerk-stenographer, the respondent has not made himself available in court to perform his duties as stenographer. Lacking the requisite qualification for the position of clerk-stenographer is sufficient warrant for dismissal. It is obvious that he secured his appointment through deceit and political patronage.

The respondent is also guilty of dereliction of duty. He failed to comply with the directive of the complainant to produce the records of Criminal Case No. 982 of the Municipal Court of Ragay.

The respondent is likewise guilty of abandonment of office. The complainant testified that his predecessor Municipal Judge Pedro C. Cruz informed his (complainant) that respondent was frequently absent in office, thus necessitating the services of a certain Miss Muñez. Since the complainant assumed office in March, 1972, he saw the respondent only once. Since October of the same year, respondent failed to report to work as well as to give his whereabouts. Because of this, the complainant reported the matter to the Secretary of Justice and returned respondent’s check for the first quincena of October, 1972. The complainant informed District Judge Abelardo Dayrit of the long and unwarranted absence of Respondent.

Respondent ignored simple office rules and regulations like the filing of application for leave of absence, which every civil service employee must know. Respondent had all the opportunities to file his corresponding leave application or to inform his superiors of his absence and the reason therefor. He evidently did not do so. The ease with which the respondent facilitated the enjoyment of his leave without official sanction in writing is not only irresponsibility of the highest order. It constitutes abandonment of office. OUR point seemed stressed in Court of Industrial Relations v. Gruspe, Jr. (Adm. Matter No. P-230, June 14, 1974, 57 SCRA 285), holding that every officer or employee in the government service is under obligation to discharge the duties of his office with diligence and integrity and with an overriding concern to promote public interest. The respondent has demonstrated by his conduct callous unconcern for the responsibilities of his office. The gross neglect of duty demonstrated by him constitutes a serious misconduct in office to warrant his removal.

The respondent is, moreover, guilty of dishonesty. He did not render the required service, yet he tried to collect the corresponding salary for the month of October, 1972. This is evidenced by his time record wherein he tried to include the services for October, 1972 (Exh. "C"), which he did not render.

The charge of immorality merits no serious consideration; because the alleged aggrieved party refused to subscribe and swear to her complaint as required by law (Sec. 12, Civil Service Act of 1959, as amended).

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, RESPONDENT PEDRO R. ABONALES, CLERK-STENOGRAPHER OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF RAGAY, CAMARINES SUR, IS FOUND GUILTY OF INCOMPETENCE, ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE AND DERELICTION OF DUTY AS WELL AS OF DISHONESTY AND IS HEREBY ORDERED DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE WITH PREJUDICE TO REINSTATEMENT AND WITH FORFEITURE OF ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.

Makalintal, C.J., Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Muñoz Palma, Aquino and Martin, JJ., concur.

Antonio and Esguerra, JJ., on official leave.

Concepcion, Jr., J., on leave.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-176 September 4, 1975 - COURT OF APPEALS v. JESUS C. BANAWA

  • G.R. No. L-28090 September 4, 1975 - CLEMENTE DEQUITO v. VICTORIA LLAMAS

  • G.R. No. L-33987 September 4, 1975 - LIBERTY COTTON MILLS WORKERS UNION, ET AL. v. LIBERTY COTTON MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38059 September 4, 1975 - JOSE QUI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-294 September 5, 1975 - MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF CASIGURAN, QUEZON v. ANTONIO VALENCIA

  • A.M. No. 749-CFI September 5, 1975 - JUANA SAN PEDRO, ET AL. v. SERAFIN SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21734 September 5, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-21971 September 5, 1975 - CORNELIO BALMACEDA v. COROMINAS & COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-29375 September 5, 1975 - EARNSHAWS DOCKS & HONOLULU IRON WORKS v. DOMINGO SORTIJAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36083 September 5, 1975 - SPS. RAMON DOROMAL, SR., AND ROSARIO SALAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41036 September 5, 1975 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PURIFICACION VDA. DE VILLARIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41162 September 5, 1975 - JAMES JUDITH, ET AL. v. MELCHOR ABRAGAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 292-MJ September 9, 1975 - RODOLFO GAMARA, ET AL. v. GEMINIANO B. ALMEDA

  • A.M. No. P-170 September 10, 1975 - JOSE P. GENIO v. PEDRO R. ABONALES

  • G.R. No. L-37684 September 10, 1975 - ARABAY, INC. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE

  • G.R. No. L-22447 September 12, 1975 - THOMSON SHIRTS FACTORY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-31241 September 12, 1975 - JESUS GALANO, ET AL. v. NEMESIO ROXAS

  • G.R. No. L-38228 September 12, 1975 - MARCIANO YACAPIN v. CFI OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38690 September 12, 1975 - CLEMENTE CELESTINO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40134 September 12, 1975 - IN RE: SATURNINO LASAM, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-31788 & L-31792 September 15, 1975 - ANTONIO H. NOBLEJAS v. EMILIO V. SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37187 September 15, 1975 - ASIATIC INTEGRATED CORPORATION v. FEDERICO ALIKPALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23050 September 18, 1975 - FEDERICO QUERUBIN v. VICTORIO ALCONCEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35001 September 25, 1975 - JUAN R. ISBERTO v. ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39117 September 25, 1975 - E. LIM & SONS MANUFACTURES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39207 September 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERMIN PADIRAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27812 September 26, 1975 - GUADALUPE GAYOS, ET AL. v. SIMEONA GAYOS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-118 September 30, 1975 - HERMINIGILDO CUTAD v. DIONISIO ABAD

  • Adm. Case No. 216-CFI September 30, 1975 - NONATO BARROSO v. ANDRES P. ARCHE

  • A.M. No. 297-MJ September 30, 1975 - AVELINA SERAFIN v. SANTIAGO LINDAYAG

  • G.R. No. L-24100 September 30, 1975 - CECILIO PANALIGAN, ET AL. v. NICOLAS C. ADOLFO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25600 September 30, 1975 - HERMINIO A. ASTORGA v. RICARDO C. PUNO

  • G.R. No. L-25962 September 30, 1975 - MARTIRES ERENO CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-27860 & L-27896 September 30, 1975 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK v. VENICIO ESCOLIN

  • G.R. No. L-29455 September 30, 1975 - REGAL AUTO WORKS, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31083 September 30, 1975 - URSULA FRANCISCO v. JULIAN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35644 September 30, 1975 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35583 September 30, 1975 - GREGORIO G. PINEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39126 September 30, 1975 - ONOFRE P. GUEVARA v. SIMEON M. GOPENGCO, ET AL.