FIRST
DIVISION
CRISTETA
ORFILA,
Complainant,
A. M. No. P-97-1234
August 18, 1997
-versus-
RONA S.
QUIROZ,Stenographer III,
RTC-Br. 18, Manila,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
PADILLA, J.:
This
administrative matter arose from the undated
letter-complaint of Cristeta Orfila, Utility Worker, Regional Trial
Court,
Branch 18, Manila, charging Rona Quiroz, Stenographer III, same court,
with habitual tardiness and loafing around during office hours. It was
alleged that respondent Quiroz frequently leaves the office during
office
hours without permission from her immediate superior or from the
presiding
judge of said court.
On 9 October
1996, Deputy Court Administrator
Reynaldo L. Suarez, by way of 1st Indorsement, referred the matter to
Judge
Perfecto A S. Laguio, Jr. for Comment and Recommendation, the same
being
within his authority as judge of RTC, Branch 18, Manila. Acting
thereon,
Judge Laguio issued a memorandum directing respondent Quiroz to submit
her comment on the charges against her.cralaw:red
In her comment,
respondent Quiroz denies the charges
against her stressing that her daily time record will show that has
been
regularly reporting for work. She claims that she has been performing
"diligently
and devotedly all the tasks assigned to her" which include transcribing
her stenographic notes and typing court orders and decisions. She avers
that the instant administrative complaint was filed by complainant
Orfila
against her merely in retaliation for the administrative complaint that
she [respondent Quiroz] had earlier filed against herein complainant.cralaw:red
On 5 November
1996, Judge Laguio conducted a hearing
during which complainant and respondent testified and adduced evidence
to support their respective allegations. On 8 November 1996, respondent
Quiroz furnished Judge Laguio with a copy of her supplemental comment
dated
7 November 1996 which she filed with the Office of Court Administrator
Alfredo L. Benipayo.
Thereafter, Judge Laguio submitted his report
dated 6 December 1996 stating that:
After a careful consideration of the
testimonies
of the complainant and the respondent, the undersigned Judge is
inclined
to believe the complainant. The fact that the complainant filed the
complaint
against the respondent in retaliation for the latter's fling of an
administrative
complaint against the former, is not detrimental to the complainant's
credibility,
having in mind the probabilities of her allegations and the respective
characters of the two protagonists. On many occasions during the
periods
in question, the undersigned had called the respondent to take some
dictation,
but she was not around, and the undersigned had been told that she had
just gone out for a while, or was in the ladies room [some of her
officemates
had covered up for her].
Considering that the acts complaint [sic]
of
are merely light service offenses [Memorandum Circular No. 8, Series of
1970], it is respectfully recommended that a fine equivalent to five
days
salary be imposed on respondent.
In a memorandum
addressed to Chief Justice Andres
R. Narvasa, dated 19 December 1996, Deputy Court Administrator Suarez
recommended
that:
Premises considered, the undersigned
respectfully
recommends that respondent Rona S. Quiroz be suspended for one [1]
month
with pay with a stern warning that a repetition of same or
similar
act in the future will be dealt with more severely. Likewise, it is
recommended
that complainant Cristeta Orfila be advised to settle amicably her
differences
with the respondent, an act that is expected especially of court
employees.
The Court is in
accord with the findings of the Investigating
Judge as well as the evaluation and report of the Office of the Court
Administrator
[OCA] particularly with respect to the charge that respondent Quiroz
had
been loafing on the job. Even the Investigating Judge himself attested
to the veracity of this charge when he reported, and this We quote
again,
that:
On many occasions during the periods in
question,
the undersigned had called the respondent to take some dictation, but
she
was not around, and the undersigned had been told that she had gone out
for a while, or was in the ladies' room [some of her officemates had
covered
up for her]
Respondent
Quiroz did not directly deny this particular
charge against her of loafing on the job. Her justification that her
daily
time record will show her daily presence in the office is unconvincing.
One can simply enter in one's daily time record the time of arrival in
the office, thereafter, leave the same and then just come back in the
afternoon
in time for the close of office hours. In such case, it would obviously
appear in the daily time record that the employee was in the office the
whole day when in fact, she was not.
The act of
respondent Quiroz of frequently leaving
the office during office hours necessarily hampers her efficiency as a
court stenographer. It bears stressing that the conduct and behavior of
everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of
justice,
from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, is circumscribed with the
heavy burden of responsibility. This Court cannot countenance any act
or
omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of
justice
which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or
even
just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary. [Roque,
et al. v. Grimaldo, A.M. No. P-95-1148, 30 July 1996; Re: Ms. Teresita
S. Sabido, 242 SCRA 432 (1995)].cralaw:red
In their
respective reports, the Investigating
Judge and the OCA have recommended different amounts of fine to be
imposed
as penalty on respondent Quiroz. The investigating Judge has
recommended
a fine equivalent to respondent Quiroz' five [5] days salary while the
OCA has recommended a fine equivalent to her one [1] month salary. The
Court finds the penalty recommended by the Investigating Judge to be
the
more appropriate penalty in this case as it involves merely light civil
service offenses. But the Court chooses to impose a penalty in the
amount
of Two Thousand Pesos [P2,000.00].cralaw:red
The Court
notes with disapproval the pervasive
atmosphere of animosity between complainant Orfila and respondent
Quiroz
as evidenced by the fact that both have filed administrative charges
against
each other. It has also been brought to the Court's attention
that
a great deal of official time have already been wasted by them
[complainant
and respondent] in monitoring and spying on each other's actuations as
bases for future complaints. Their conduct is certainly prejudicial to
the best interest of the service and cannot be allowed to continue. The
Court strongly urges complainant and respondent to amicably settle
their
differences at the soonest possible time. It is well to remind them
that
as court employees, they are, at all times, expected to act with strict
propriety and decorum so as to earn and keep the public's respect for
and
confidence in the judicial service. [Gratela v. Yonzon, Jr., 256 SCRA
587
(1996); Tablate v. Tanjutco-Seechung, 234 SCRA 161 (1994)].cralaw:red
ACCORDINGLY, the
Court finds respondent Quiroz
GUILTY of loafing on the job and imposes on her a FINE of Two Thousand
[P2,000.00] Pesos with WARNING that any repetition by her of the same
or
similar acts will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo,
Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr.,
JJ., concur. |