Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > November 2007 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-05-2070 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2259-P] : November 19, 2007] LILIA RAGA VS. NILDA CINCO, ACTING BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, ETC, BR. 28, CATBALOGAN, SAMAR AND A.M. OCA IPI NO. 05-2291-P (NILDA CINCO V. LILIA RAGA, PROCESS SERVER, RTC, BR. 28, CATBALOGAN, SAMAR) :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 19 November 2007:

A.M. No. P-05-2070 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2259-P] (Lilia Raga vs. Nilda Cinco, Acting Branch Clerk of Court, ETC, Br. 28, Catbalogan, Samar) and A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2291-P (Nilda Cinco v. Lilia Raga, Process Server, RTC, Br. 28, Catbalogan, Samar) �This resolves the twin administrative matters arising from a Letter^[1] dated 12 December 2004 filed by Lilia Raga, Process Server, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catbalogan, Samar, Branch 28 charging Nilda Cinco, Court Legal Researcher II and Acting Branch Clerk of Court of the same court, with willful neglect of duty for allegedly refusing to sign and transmit to the Leave Section, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), her bundy cards and corresponding applications for leave for the months of October and November 2004. Raga expressed her concern that Cinco's inaction might result to the withholding of salaries and other benefits due her.

As directed by the Court, Cinco filed her Comment^[2] dated 7 March 2005 to Raga's complaint denying the charges against her and leveling charges of falsification of daily time records and dishonesty against Raga.

After a preliminary inquiry, the OCA came up with the following findings and recommendations in its Report,^[3] to wit:

x x x

Required in comment on the allegations leveled against her, respondent Cinco in her Letter-Comment dated 7 March 2005 vehemently denied the accusation that the bundy card of complainant for the month of October 2004 was in her possession. She explained that it was taken from her by complainant's husband, Mr. Eustacio C. Raga, Jr. sometime in November 2004 when the latter inquired whether his wife's bundy card was already submitted to the Office of the Clerk of Court for the transmittal to the Office of the Court Administrator. According to respondent, she informed Mr. Raga that herein complainant's bundy card was still unsigned because Judge Sibanah S. Usman, the Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar was on leave for the whole month of November 2004 and she cannot act on it all by herself. Said incident was allegedly witnessed by Mmes. Grace C. Morales, Leila L. Cinco and Jennifer Boncales. Moreover, complainant was allegedly suspended for thirty (30) days by Judge Usman, but complainant refused to head the same contending that it was not in accordance to existing law, rules and regulations. Anent complainant's bundy card for November 2004, respondent averred that she had already forwarded the same to the Office of the Clerk of Court, together with the bundy cards of the other employees of RTC, Branch 287, Catbalogan, Samar on 12 December 2004. A certification to that effect was issued by Atty. Ma. Luz Lampasa-Pabilana, Clerk of Court of RTC, Catbalogan, Samar. She stated, however, that no application for leave was filed by Ms. Raga for the month of November 2004. Allegedly, it was Ms. Elizabeth M. Corrales, Stenographer III of the same court, who handed to respondent the bundy card of complainant but without the alleged application for leave.

According to respondent, she purposely did not sign nor authenticate complainant's bundy card for November 2004 because there were untruthful entries in it, viz;

"On November 8,2004

punch out at 12:00 a.m.
punch in at 12:32 noon
punch out at 5:00 p.m."

In refuting the aforequoted entries, respondent averred that while complainant reported for work at 7:44 a.m. on even date, she went out at about past 8:00 a.m. and did not report for work in the afternoon of that same day. Such fact was allegedly recorded in respondent's separate logbook. Thus, she presumed that somebody else must have "punched" for complainant.

Respondent averred that 18 November 2004'was the 40th death anniversary of complainant's brother. Allegedly, the event which took place near a beach was even attended by Mmes. Grace Morales, Leila L. Cinco, Elizabeth M. Corrales and Alicia Redaja, all court employees, upon complainant's invitation for lunch. Benjamin Garcia, Utility Worker of said court, remembered that Ms. Raga was not in the office that day. It was only on 19 November 2004 the following morning that complainant affixed her signature in the attendance logbook.

"On November 19,2004

punch in at 12:32 noon
punch out at 5:00 p.m."

On the aforesaid date, complainant Raga allegedly did not report for work the whole afternoon because she attended that investigation regarding the stabbing of her son. It was only the morning, 20m November 2004 that complainant affixed her signature on the attendance logbook.

"On November 26. 2004

punch out at 5:00 p.m.

According to respondent, complainant Raga reported for work at 12:31 in the afternoon, but went out afterwards and did hot return anymore.

"On December 16.2004

punch out at 12:01 noon
punch in at 12:33 noon
punch out at 5:00 p.m.

On November 21, 2004

punch out at 12:11 noon
punch in at 12:52 noon
punch out at 5:01 p.m."

Respondent alleged that in both instances, complainant went out of the office after "punching in" her bundy card and did not return until afternoon. The former drew a line to indicate the closing of the attendance sheet but complainant Raga still inserted her signature the morning after. Respondent surmised that somebody else must have been 'punching out' for complainant Raga.

On 22 December 2004, complainant Raga allegedly reported for work at 7:36 a.m. but went out at about 10:00 a.m. But before going out, complainant made an entry in the attendance logbook by making it appear that she timed out at 12:00 noon and timed in for the afternoon at 12:30. But allegedly, complainant made the entries before going out at around 10:00 a.m. Respondent allegedly discovered (his when she was logging out at 12:00 noon and saw that complainant Raga had already registered her time in at 12:30 when it was only 12:00 o'clock and she was not even around since she went out at 10:00 a.m. Respondent surmised that complainant must have known that she (respondent) was closing the attendance sheet and so what complainant did was to register her time in and time out ahead of time and those who were actually present. Thus when respondent saw what complainant did, she allegedly erased the latter's signature by means of correction fluid and made some footnotes on the pages of the logbook where the untruthful entires were made. Upon learning that the former was monitoring her attendance in office, complainant allegedly erased all her signature appearing in the logbook. Respondent likewise alleged that she even heard complainant utter. "Matakas la ito hiya pag-pinambutamg notations, kadale daw la pag siring nga nagsserbe ako summons kay Process Server ako (She will only get tired of making notations because it is easy for me to say that I am serving summons because I am a Process Server.)^[4]

The OCA observed that the exchange of accusations between Raga and Cinco had raised serious issues of fact that could not be resolved on the basis of the allegations in the pleadings and that the parties should be given the opportunity to substantiate by evidence their accusations in a formal investigation. Thus, it made the following recommendations, to wit:

1. the instant complaint be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;
   
   
2. the instant case be REFERRED to the Executive Judge of RTC, Calbalogan, Samar for investigation, report and recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of the records;
   
   
3. the comment of respondent Nilda Cinco be TREATED as an administrative complaint against herein complainant Lilia Raga for Falsification of Daily Time Records and Dishonesty; and
   
   
4. that Ms. Lilia Raga be required to COMMENT on the allegations contained in the letter of Ms. Nilda Cinco dated 7 March 2005.^[5]
   

The Court resolved to refer the administrative matter to the Executive Judge of RTC, Catbalogan, Samar for investigation, report and recommendation. It further treated the comment of Cinco as an administrative complaint against Raga and required the latter to comment thereon.^[6]

In her Comment dated 9 October 2005,^[7] Raga first attacked Cinco's letter-comment to be not in the prescribed form as required by the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service. She argued that it was not subscribed and sworn to by Cinco. She alleged that the complaint was unsubstantiated because there were no attached documents to support the allegations, thus making it impossible for Raga to be apprised of the nature and cause of the accusations against her. According to Raga, it was difficult for her to make an intelligent comment as there was no evidence to support Cinco's claims.

On the charges leveled against her, Raga claimed that they were made merely to harass her. She alleged that other employees were likewise remiss in their attendance, yet Cinco chose to find fault in her alone. She denied all the allegations against her. She attached photocopies of receipts which indicated the dates mentioned when she was out of the office on official business such as bringing mail matters to the post office, serving notices, subpoenas and other court processes. She averred that she personally logged her bundy card. She argued that Cinco's recorded notation in a separate logbook of her time-in and time-out was in preparation for a countercharge and had no probative value since it was not in the official logbook. She stressed that the nature of her work required her to be out of the office most of the time.

Raga filed a second Comment^[8] dated 6 November 2005 reiterating the allegations and arguments in her 9 October 2005 Comment, and further alleged that she could not be administratively charged twice for the same accusation. She then prayed that the complaint against her be dismissed.

In its Report,^[9] the OCA observed that the two complaints involved the same parties and that a full blown investigation was necessary to their resolution considering the irreconcilable positions taken by the parties. It then recommended that OCA IPI No. 05-2291-P (Nilda Cinco v. Lilia Raga) be consolidated with A.M. No. P-05-2070 (formerly OCA [PI No. 05-2259-P) for the speedy disposition of the matters.

In a Resolution^[10] dated 22 February 2006, the Court consolidated the two administrative matters and referred the same to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Cebu City for investigation, report and recommendation.

After due hearing, the Investigating Judge^[11] submitted his Report^[12] with the following findings and recommendations which are concise enough to allow reproduction hereunder:

It can well be gleaned from the testimonies of witnesses as to the first case against Ms. Cinco that the October 2004 time card of Ms. Raga was retrieved by her husband on the second week of November 2004. Disinterested witnesses Mesdames Boncales and Cinco affirmed this fact. On the other hand, Mr. Raga could not recall who were present at the time he handed the time card. It might be so also when he retrieved it. So Ms. Cinco cannot be guilty of neglect for it was impossible for her to transmit Ms. Raga's October 2004 time card, it not being her custody. While the testimony of Mr. Raga would show he submitted the October 2004 time card of his wife as indubitably shown by the signed receipt, it cannot prove that (sic) same was retrieved from Ms. Cinco's possession. But as has always been the case the positive assertions of witnesses prevail over an implied denial of fact. Hence, the assertions of Mesdames Boncales and Cinco that the October 2004 time card and leave form of Ms. Raga were taken by Mr. Raga on the 2nd week of November 2004 will prevail over the mere denial that it was not retrieved. Mr. Raga's claim of having learned only on 11 November 2004 that his wife's time card was not included in the transmittal to the office of the clerk of court and thence to the OCA, is difficult to believe. Being himself an OIC clerk of court, he knows that the lime card of employees are signed by him and the presiding judge. The same would be true of RTC Branch 28 staff. So without the signature of the presiding judge, the time card was incomplete and it would be useless to send it to the OCA. The act of approving a time card is not at all ministerial as Ms. Raga believed. It is the official document that signifies presence of an employee at work and thus entitled to salary and other benefits. So verification of its truthfulness is a sovereign exercise in the case of public employees.

This investigating officer holds that the time cards of the other employees were signed by Ms. Cinco and Judge Ustnan on the last working day of October 2004. Since Ms. Raga's lime card was submitted only on the 5th when the presiding judge was already on leave, necessarily it would be unsigned. Actually, there would not have been a problem in this regard for the executive judge can sign in behalf of the judge-on-leave. But there was the suspension order of Ms. Raga by Judge Usman which confounded the OIC Ms. Cinco, whether to sign the October 2004 time card or not. By a perusal of the suspension order, it encompasses the period form 13 October 2004 to 13 November 2004. So for this reason alone there is a good ground to believe that Ms. Cinco was in good faith keeping custody of Ms. Raga's time card until she was able to confer with the presiding judge. The situation of course was complicated by Mr. Raga's retrieval of the time card. Both he and Ms. Raga impliedly denied that time card was taken from Ms. Cinco. But such a denial would certainly speak of the deeper scheme webbed to have the circumstances interpreted in some other way than they would normally appear. Certainly, the Raga spouses would have known that the presiding judge was on leave and the October 2004 time card would remain unsigned. Hence, the retrieval. But Ms. Cinco can hardly be faulted for it.

On the other hand, the November 2004 time card of Ms. Raga it turned out was approved by the presiding judge and ultimately submitted to the OCA within the period to do so. While admittedly Ms. Cinco took issue to several entries therein, as she in fact did not sign it, the same was still transmitted and no prejudice to Ms. Raga happened as a consequence. The latter even promised to write the OCA to straighten the erroneous assertion she made in the letter inquiry regarding the same. In other words, Ms. Cinco was able to prove she officially performed her duty respecting the November 2004 time card of Ms. Raga.

As a consequence of this disquisition it is respectfully recommended that Ms. Cinco be exculpated of the charge for willful neglect of duty since there is no basis for it.

Coming now to the second case, this investigating officer is of the belief that insufficient evidence exist to hold that Ms. Raga falsified her time card on the dates complained of. There is however a lingering doubt that, in between the logging in and out of her time card and registration of her attendance in the logbooks, she was present in the office. But at the very least Ms. Raga presented evidence of having performed her duties on the dates complained of. This investigating officer believes though that to serve the cited notices, court orders and the delivery of mail matters to the post office, require but a short while even including the preparation of same. So the daily work output of Ms. Raga as narrated to justify her office attendance actually fells short of the eight hour working day for November 18, 19, 26 and for December 16 and 21 all of 2004. These absences in between log in and out and registration in the logbook are cases of malingering or underlining. Not falsification.

This investigator cannot wholly dismiss the actual recording of Ms. Raga's coming in and out of the office for the time card speaks for itself and should be given full weight. The time card might not be reflective of the actual presence of Ms. Raga in the court premises, yet it represents her entrance to office. Besides, there is doubt that somebody else logged Ms. Raga's presence because of the dearth in evidence to this effect. So presumably she did it herself. However, it is borne on record that the notations made by Ms. Cinco on the absences in the office of Ms. Raga, in between office hours on the dates complained of, were true. Benjamin Garcia corroborated Mrs. Raga's absence on the 18th of November 2004. The rest of the dates, her absences were duly recorded. Only that there were short periods she was able to fulfill her duties outside of office as process server. These of course constitute loafing because after the service of notifications, court orders to the PAO and prosecution office and delivery of mail matters to the post office, she was expected to be in the office the rest of the time.

Loafing as a first offense merits the penalty of suspension. This investigator takes notes however, that Ms. Raga had already been dismissed from the service. So this case was overtaken by another. To recommend a penalty less than the supreme one would be a useless exercise. But if a fine can be imposed, then one should be meted for at least P2,000.00 against Ms. Raga so other employees may learn the consequence of stealing time from the government. This resolution is still made in order that other employees in the judiciary might take heed of the lesson these cases offer. In the several stations each employee holds in the judicial service they should always be honest and upright that the entire judiciary merit the respect of the public it serves.

Finally, Ms. Raga can not be held for falsification because the evidence show that she in fact registered her presence at work and discharged her duties on dates complained of She just made use of government time for other unspecified endeavors hence her conspicuous absences in between incoming log in and out.

We adopt the findings and recommendations of the OCA and of the Investigating Judge to be in accordance with law and the facts of the case.

As to the first complaint, Cinco was justified in not transmitting Raga's time cards for the months of October and November 2004 as she was only performing what was expected of her as Acting Branch Clerk of Court. Absent proof to the contrary, Cinco cannot be held guilty of willful neglect of duty. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint.^[13] Raga failed to discharge such burden. Hence, Cinco should be exonerated.

In the same vein, Raga cannot be held liable for falsification of daily time records and dishonesty as Cinco likewise failed to sufficiently prove that Raga did not personally punch her bundy cards or that she was not in the office at the times she stated in the logbook. At most, Raga is liable for loafing or frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours. Raga's acts of leaving her workstation to attend to unofficial matters necessarily hampers her efficiency as a process server. It bears stressing that court personnel shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours. They must thoroughly avoid any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official duties.

Time and again, we have held 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.^[14] 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 lend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.^[15]

The offense of loafing or frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours is penalized by suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense. However, suspension is no longer possible considering that Raga had already been dismissed from the service for Grave Misconduct pursuant to our Resolution dated 21 June 2006 in A.M. No. P-06-2150. Nonetheless, her previous dismissal does not render this case moot.^[16] She could not avoid administrative liability. Had it not been for her previous dismissal, she ought to have been suspended for this grave offense.

WHEREFORE, respondent Lilia Raga, Process Server, RTC of Catbalogan, Samar, Br. 28 is found GUILTY of Loafing or Frequent Unauthorized Absences from Duty during Regular Office Hours and is ordered to pay a FINE in the amount of P5,000.00 to be satisfied within fifteen (15) days from the finality of this Resolution. The charges against Nilda Cinco, Acting Branch Clerk of Court, RTC of Catbalogan, Samar, Br. 28 are DISMISSED for lack of evidence.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] A.M. OCA IPI No. P-05-2070, rollo, pp. 5-6.

^[2] A.M. OCA IPI No. P-05-2291, rollo, pp. 1-6.

^[3] A.M. No. OCA IPI No. P-05-2070, rollo, pp. 1-4.

^[4] Id. at 1-3.

^[5] Id. at 4.

^[6] Per Resolution dated 5 September 2005; id. at 33.

^[7] A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2291-P, rollo, pp.10-28 with annexes.

^[8] Id. at 29-38.

^[9] Id. at 56-58.

^[10] Id. at 59.

^[11] Hon. Agerico A. Avila, Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Catbalogan, Samar.

^[12] A.M. OCA IPI No. P-05-2070, rollo, pp. 365-388.

^[13] Morales, Sr. v. Judge Dumlao, 427 Phil. 56, 62 (2002).

^[14] Zenaida C. Gutierrez, et al. v. Rodolfo Quitalig, A.M. No. P-02-1545, April 2, 2003.

^[15] Concerned Citizens of San Francisco, Surigao Del Norte v. Hon. Judge Juanillo M. Pullos, Esmeralda L. Angob, Rosario B. Gasulas and Almeda B. Payusan, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1507, 20 January 2004, 420 SCRA 138; Roque, et al. v. Grimaldo, A.M. No. P-95-1148, 30 July 1996; Re: Ms. Teresita S. Sabido, 242 SCRA 432, (19950; Sy v. Academia, 198 SCRA 705, 717 (1991).

^[16] Sibulo v. San Jose, A.M. No. P-05-2088, 11 November 2005; See In Report on the Judicial and Financial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Koronadal City, A.M. No. 02-9-233-MTCC, 27 April 2005.