EN BANC
BALTAZAR LL.
FIRMALO,
LEGAL RESEARCHER II,
OFFICER-IN-CHARGE,
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
OURT,RTC-BR. 82,
ODIONGAN,
ROMBLON,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-03-1701
June 20, 2003
-versus-
MELINDA C. QUIERREZ,
CLERK III, RTC-BR. 82,
ODIONGAN, ROMBLON,
Respondent.
D E C I S I
O N
PER
CURIAM:
Baltazar Ll. Firmalo,
Legal Researcher II and Officer-in-Charge of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 82, Odiongan, Romblon, in a letter-complaint dated 29 September
2000[1]
charged Melinda C. Quierrez, Clerk III of the same Court, with
Incompetence
in the Performance of Official Duties.
Complainant Baltazar
Ll. Firmalo alleges that respondent Melinda C. Quierrez has been
inefficient
and negligent in the performance of her duties and responsibilities
despite
the fact that she has been in the service for seventeen (17) years. As
proof of his allegation, complainant Firmalo attaches to his
letter-complaint
various memoranda which he issued against respondent reminding her of
certain
duties and responsibilities as clerk-in-charge of civil cases which she
either neglected to do or failed to perform well.cralaw:red
Specifically, in a Memorandum
dated 2 March 2000, Firmalo directed respondent to schedule forty-three
(43) civil cases which the latter neglected to do for quite a long time;[2]
in Memorandum dated 14 and 15 June 2000, Firmalo also directed
respondent
to comment on the complaint of Mrs. Amparo Navarrete regarding the
non-scheduling
for publication of a petition for change of name which had been filed
four
(4) months before; in Memorandum dated 6 September 2000, complainant
directed
respondent to explain why Sp. Proc. No. OD-515, "In re: Petition for
Correction
of Entry Appearing in the Certificate of Live Birth of Clarence Paz,"
was
not immediately entered in the docket book as a result of which a
second
case, "Adoracion Faderogao v. Celia de Leon" was given the same docket
number, i.e., Sp. Proc. No. OD-515;[3]
in Memorandum dated 11 September 2000 Firmalo reminded respondent that
she was supposed to submit the monthly report of cases on or before the
fifteenth (15) day of each succeeding month and called her attention to
the fact that the monthly reports for July 1999 to August 2000 had not
yet been submitted;[4]
in Memorandum dated 13 September 2000 he gave respondent sixty (60)
days
within which to improve her work, otherwise, her performance rating
would
be greatly affected;[5]
in Memorandum dated 19 September 2000 he directed respondent to prepare
and properly index the records of appealed cases which were due for
transmittal
to the Court of Appeals, and advised her to heed the verbal
instructions
of the presiding judge which she was wont to ignore, to attend to
litigants
who were asking for the status of their cases, and to concentrate on
unfinished
work instead of going out during office hours;[6]
in a Memorandum dated 20 September 2000 Firmalo warned and directed
respondent
not to calendar cases verbally without his knowledge and without the
proper
notifications being attached to the records;[7]
and lastly, in a Memorandum dated 29 September 2000 he again reminded
respondent
of her long overdue monthly report of cases and advised her to finish
them
instead of leaving the office frequently during office hours.[8]
On her part, respondent
denies that she has been negligent or inefficient in the performance of
her work.[9]
She contends that she has been saddled with numerous responsibilities
which
she tried to fulfill to the best of her ability. Although there was
delay
in her preparation and submission of the monthly reports of civil cases
she explains that this was only an isolated instance brought about by a
pressing health problem in the family which needed her attention. She
claims
that the delay was unintentional.cralaw:red
Respondent admits her
shortcomings but maintains that they were unintentional. She thus
implores
the compassionate consideration of the Court, citing the "satisfactory"
work performance rating given her by complainant for the first part of
the year 2001.cralaw:red
In his Reply dated 9
July 2002,[10]
complainant denies that he gave respondent a satisfactory performance
rating
for the period January to June 2001. On the contrary, he rated
respondent’s
work performance "unsatisfactory" as usual as clearly shown by a
photocopy
of the performance rating dated 6 July 2001.[11]
Complainant avers that even up to the present, respondent continues to
receive a string of memoranda from Atty. Rolly F. Roldan, Jr., the
incumbent
Clerk of Court, who assumed the position on 4 September 2001. To cite a
few, respondent has been directed to explain why she scheduled a case
without
consulting the new clerk of court, without waiting for the minutes of
the
last meeting, and without the conformity of the counsel of the parties
as approved by the court. She was thus reminded that she was not
authorized
to grant any request of schedule unless approved by the presiding judge.[12]
In addition, respondent
was likewise directed to explain: (a) why she sent notices for the
hearing
of a case on a date different from that agreed upon by the parties and
approved by the court;[13]
(b) why it took her more than two (2) hours to type a two-page
certificate
of finality of judgment;[14]
(c) why she failed to make the proper entries in the docket book of
around
seventy (70) cases;[15]
and, (d) why she still failed to accomplish and to submit correct
copies
of Monthly Report of civil cases for the months of March and April 2002.[16]
Atty. Roldan, Jr. thus gave respondent an "Unsatisfactory" performance
rating for the period July to December 2001[17]
and even wrote[18]
the Court Management Office (CMO) of the Office of the Court
Administrator
(OCA) informing it of respondent’s continued incompetence.[19]
As regards respondent’s
claim that the delay in her work was due to health problem, complainant
dismisses the same as purely self-serving and bereft of factual basis.
Aside from the fact that the alleged health problem was not specified,
respondent’s husband, who is likewise a court employee, continues to
report
for work without any indication whatsoever that there was a pressing
health
problem in the family. With respect to the claim that she was given
numerous
tasks to perform, complainant counters that respondent was even the
employee
given the least number of responsibilities among the employees at the
RTC-Br.
82.cralaw:red
In its Memorandum of
8 January 2003 the OCA enumerated the circumstances that would justify
respondent’s dismissal from the service. It appears however that during
the pendency of this case, or specifically on 8 January 2003,
respondent
wrote the OCA signifying her intention to optionally retire. The OCA
thus
recommended approval of respondent’s optional retirement considering
the
latter’s alleged remorse and almost twenty (20) years of service in the
judiciary.cralaw:red
We cannot accept the
recommendation. For one thing, we do not see any sign of respondent’s
alleged
remorse. The record shows that this is not her first administrative
case.
In 1996 she was censured, reprimanded and sternly warned by her
Presiding
Judge, the Hon. Cezar R. Maravilla, RTC-Br. 82, Odiongan, Romblon, in
an
Order dated 20 May 1996, for disobedience and gross inefficiency in the
performance of her duties, specifically for failing to submit an
inventory
of cases and to schedule forty-seven (47) criminal cases in the court
calendar,
in violation of memoranda addressed to her by the clerk of court. Thus,
when a judicial audit conducted on 16-19 July 1999 by the Judicial
Audit
Team of the OCA yielded the finding that the forty-seven (47) criminal
cases were indeed not scheduled by the clerk-in-charge of criminal
cases,
herein respondent, the OCA recommended administrative sanction for
gross
negligence and inefficiency. The only thing that kept the Court from
imposing
a heavier penalty in A.M. No. 96-8-301-RTC, "Report on the Judicial
Audit
Conducted in the RTC-Branch 82, Odiongan, Romblon"[20]
was the censure, reprimand and stern warning already imposed by
respondent’s
presiding judge.cralaw:red
Several months after
the foregoing case, respondent was assigned to type orders, decisions,
clearances, certifications, warrants of arrest, vouchers, reports of
inventory
of cases and performance ratings. However, she still failed to perform
the assigned tasks efficiently as shown by work marred by omissions,
spelling
and syntax errors as well as spacing and margin mistakes. This resulted
in yet another case, "Baltazar LL. Firmalo v. Melinda C. Quierrez,"
which
was docketed as A.M. No. P-00-1401. The case was initiated by a
Letter-Recommendation
dated 19 December 1996 of OIC Clerk of Court Firmalo and indorsed by
Acting
Presiding Judge Placido C. Marquez, RTC-Br. 82, Odiongan, Romblon,
recommending
respondent’s dismissal for gross neglect of duty and gross
inefficiency.
After deliberation of the case, the Court in a Resolution dated 29
January
2002 found respondent guilty of gross negligence and incompetence as
charged
and imposed a P1,000.00 fine with stern warning that commission of a
similar
act in the future would be dealt with more severely by the Court.cralaw:red
Despite the foregoing
administrative sanctions and stern warning, respondent still failed to
improve her work performance as shown by the present case and yet
another
one in the offing identified by Reference Code No. CMO-415-A of the
Court
Management Office (CMO) of the OCA. The latter case was initiated by a
letter of Atty. Rolly F. Roldan, Jr., the incumbent Clerk of Court,
RTC-Br.
82, Odiongan, Romblon, informing the OCA of respondent’s failure to
again
comply with an office memorandum requiring her to update the entries in
the docket book for civil cases. Atty. Roldan lamented that respondent
continued to be a problem employee who is prone to commit mistakes, is
very slow in learning, needs constant and close supervision, and is
incapable
of accomplishing most of her workload.cralaw:red
Respondent’s record
thus speaks for itself. All judges, clerks of court, and
officers-in-charge
she had worked with had all complained about her work performance. The
record of her unsatisfactory performance ratings since 1996 reflects
her
inefficiency. Respondent’s performance ratings for the years 1996 to
2001
are res ipsa loquitur:
Rating Period
Numerical Rating Adjective Rating
2nd Sem.
1996
16 Unsatisfactory
1st Sem.
1997
22 Satisfactory
1st Sem.
1998
20 Unsatisfactory
2nd Sem.
1998
20 Unsatisfactory
1st Sem.
1999
20 Unsatisfactory
2nd Sem.
1999
20 Unsatisfactory
1st Sem.
2000
20 Unsatisfactory
2nd Sem.
2000
24 Satisfactory
1st Sem.
2001
20 Unsatisfactory
2nd Sem.
2001
20 Unsatisfactory
From the first semester
of year 1998 to the second semester of year 2001 respondent
consistently
received unsatisfactory remarks except in the second semester of year
2000
where she received a numerical rating of 24 or an adjective rating of
"satisfactory."
Section 3, Rule IX, Book V, of Executive Order No. 292 provides that
"two
(2) successive unsatisfactory ratings shall be a ground for separation
from the service." It is likewise stated in Sec. 22, par. P, Rule IX
that
"inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties
shall
warrant the penalties of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day
for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense."
Considering all the
foregoing, it is all too clear why we cannot approve respondent’s
application
for optional retirement which was thought of only after the present
case
was filed. In fact, we view the same as an obvious attempt on her part
to elude administrative liability commensurate to her malfeasance.
Respondent’s
intention to optionally retire was contrived only after it became clear
that dismissal from the service was now inevitable. Moreover, to allow
optional retirement would amount to putting respondent in a much better
position than those separated from the service for a similar offense.
Her
justification therefor - that her delay, negligence and inefficiency
were
unintentional and due to health problems - will not absolve her from
administrative
liability. Even with the fullest measure of sympathy and patience, we
cannot
act otherwise since the exigencies of government service cannot and
should
not be subordinated to purely human equations. Respondent should
realize
that her administrative functions are just as essential to the prompt
and
proper administration of justice.cralaw:red
This Court is only too
aware of respondent’s almost twenty (20) years of service, but to allow
her to avail of optional retirement after her continued negligence and
incompetence despite previous administrative sanctions and warnings
would
be to condone her flagrant and persistent dereliction of duties. This
Court
always endeavors to deal with the members of the judiciary with an even
hand and equal concern. For such, after all, is the essence of
adjudicatory
justice.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, for Gross
Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duties, respondent MELINDA
C. QUIERREZ, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 82, Odiongan,
Romblon,
is DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits,
except
accrued leave credits, but without prejudice to re-employment in any
branch
or agency of the government including any government-owned or
controlled
corporation.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez,
J.,
on official leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 13.
[2]
Id., pp. 17-18.
[3]
Id., p. 20.
[4]
Id., p. 29.
[5]
Id., p. 30.
[6]
Id., p. 14.
[7]
Id., p. 31.
[8]
Id., p. 16.
[9]
Undated Comment; Id., p. 2.
[10]
Id., p. 39.
[11]
Annex "C;" Id., p. 44.
[12]
Memorandum dated 5 November 2001; Rollo, p. 66.
[13]
Memorandum dated 6 November 2001; Id., p. 67.
[14]
Memorandum dated 12 November 2001; Id., no pagination.
[15]
Memorandum dated 31 January 2002; Id., no pagination.
[16]
Memorandum dated 20 May 2002; Id., no pagination,
[17]
Annex "A;" Id., p. 42.
[18]
Id., p. 43.
[19]
Reference Code No. CMO-415A.
[20]
Resolution dated 8 July 1998, 292 SCRA 1. |