January 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > January 2009 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-09-2596 : January 09, 2009] ATTY. MARLYDS L. ESTARDO-TEODORO,ACTING CLERK OF COURT V. MR. RONALD C. CANLAS, UTILITY WORKER I, BOTH OF THE OCC, RTC, SAN FERNANDO CITY, PAMPANGA :
[A.M. No. P-09-2596 : January 09, 2009]
ATTY. MARLYDS L. ESTARDO-TEODORO,ACTING CLERK OF COURT V. MR. RONALD C. CANLAS, UTILITY WORKER I, BOTH OF THE OCC, RTC, SAN FERNANDO CITY, PAMPANGA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 28 January 2009:
A.M. No. P-09-2596 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2995-P) (Atty. Marlyds L. Estardo-Teodoro,' Acting Clerk of Court v. Mr. Ronald C. Canlas, Utility Worker I, both of the OCC, RTC, San Fernando City, Pampanga).-In her complaint report dated 20 March 2007, Atty. Marlyds L. Estardo-Teodoro charged Ronald C. Canlas with Dishonesty and Falsification of Daily Time Records. She alleged that respondent logged in his time of arrival in the morning and in the afternoon of 9 February 2007 as reflected in his daily time record (DTR). However, he could not be found within the premises of the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) or in the hallway of the court for the whole duration of the working hours. Respondent also failed to sign in the OCC attendance logbook on the said date.
In his Comment dated 24 September 2007, respondent denies the charges against him. He claims that he stayed within the OCC premises from 8:00 a.m. until 12:53 p.m. At around 1:00 p.m., while discussing his financial problems with Salvador Aguilar, another OCC employee, the latter suggested that respondent immediately file his application for a JDF Allowance Loan at the Supreme Court. Respondent decided to do so and, before leaving, asked Aguilar to inform his co-employees that he would leave for Manila and to take charge of the janitorial works in the meantime, to which Aguilar agreed. Respondent claims he returned to the office at around 4:30 p.m. and was able to see Nina Aizza Maglanque and Juliet Galang, both personnel of the OCC. At 5:00 p.m., respondent secured the safety of the office, turned off and unplugged the computers and electrical fixtures and punched out his DTR at 5:03 p.m. Respondent claims he had no intention of violating office rules and regulations and any indiscretions or lapses on his part were due mainly to his pressing, emergency situation.
In its Report dated 24 October 2008, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) notes that respondent admitted in his Comment that he was out the whole afternoon without asking permission from his superior. For this, he should be held administratively liable but not for the offense with which he was charged. According to the OCA, the records do not support the offenses of Dishonesty and Falsification of DTR. He personally clocked in at 7:31 a.m. and clocked out at 12:00 p.m. and stayed within the OCC premises during that period. Respondent admitted that he left the court during office hours and after attending to personal matters in the Supreme Court, returned to his work station at 4:30 p.m. and attended to his duties until 5:03 p.m. The letter dated 9 March 2007 of two other court employees, Galang and Maglanque, bears this out. While he did leave the court without informing or seeking permission from his superiors, he requested another employee to inform his co-employees of his whereabouts and to temporarily attend to his janitorial responsibilities. The OCA finds that respondent's act of leaving his office during the afternoon office hours without any permission from his superiors although he clocked in for that afternoon constitutes simple misconduct for which he should be penalized with suspension without pay for one month and one day. The OCA cites Sec. 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel which provides that court employees shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence and that they shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.
The OCA also notes in its report that there is another pending administrative charge against respondent for Dereliction of Duty and Misconduct docketed as A.M. No, OCA IPI No. 07-2476-P which has been referred to the Executive Judge, RTC, San Fernando City, Pampanga for investigation.
Frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours is penalized, under the Civil Service Commission Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases (CSC Revised Uniform Rules), with the minimum penalty of suspension for six months and one day for the first offense and with dismissal for the second offense. Falsification of an official document such as the DTR is considered a grave offense under the CSC Revised Uniform Rules and is penalized with dismissal for the first offense.
Respondent's absence, from the office for a few hours in one day is inconsistent with his declaration in his DTR that he was present at work during those hours. This is tantamount to falsification. However, Sec. 53 of the CSC Revised Uniform Rules grants the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances even if not pleaded by the respondent. In the case at bar, there is nothing from the records that would indicate that the unauthorized absences are habitual or a frequent occurrence. It appears also that this is the first time that such infractions have been reported and subject of an administrative investigation. Respondent also readily admitted his offense.
Considering the foregoing circumstances, the recommendation of the OCA that respondent be found liable for simple misconduct is well-taken. Misconduct has been defined as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior."[1] Simple misconduct is classified as a less grave offense, punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months.[2] The penalty of suspension for one month and one day is appropriate in this case.
Respondent should also be reminded that public office is a public trust. The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Those involved in the administration of justice must live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service.[3]
WHEREFORE, Ronald C. Canlas, Utility Worker I, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, San Fernando City, Pampanga, is found GUILTY. of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and SUSPENDED for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, the same to take effect immediately upon receipt of this resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall warrant a more severe penalty.
A.M. No. P-09-2596 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2995-P) (Atty. Marlyds L. Estardo-Teodoro,' Acting Clerk of Court v. Mr. Ronald C. Canlas, Utility Worker I, both of the OCC, RTC, San Fernando City, Pampanga).-In her complaint report dated 20 March 2007, Atty. Marlyds L. Estardo-Teodoro charged Ronald C. Canlas with Dishonesty and Falsification of Daily Time Records. She alleged that respondent logged in his time of arrival in the morning and in the afternoon of 9 February 2007 as reflected in his daily time record (DTR). However, he could not be found within the premises of the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) or in the hallway of the court for the whole duration of the working hours. Respondent also failed to sign in the OCC attendance logbook on the said date.
In his Comment dated 24 September 2007, respondent denies the charges against him. He claims that he stayed within the OCC premises from 8:00 a.m. until 12:53 p.m. At around 1:00 p.m., while discussing his financial problems with Salvador Aguilar, another OCC employee, the latter suggested that respondent immediately file his application for a JDF Allowance Loan at the Supreme Court. Respondent decided to do so and, before leaving, asked Aguilar to inform his co-employees that he would leave for Manila and to take charge of the janitorial works in the meantime, to which Aguilar agreed. Respondent claims he returned to the office at around 4:30 p.m. and was able to see Nina Aizza Maglanque and Juliet Galang, both personnel of the OCC. At 5:00 p.m., respondent secured the safety of the office, turned off and unplugged the computers and electrical fixtures and punched out his DTR at 5:03 p.m. Respondent claims he had no intention of violating office rules and regulations and any indiscretions or lapses on his part were due mainly to his pressing, emergency situation.
In its Report dated 24 October 2008, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) notes that respondent admitted in his Comment that he was out the whole afternoon without asking permission from his superior. For this, he should be held administratively liable but not for the offense with which he was charged. According to the OCA, the records do not support the offenses of Dishonesty and Falsification of DTR. He personally clocked in at 7:31 a.m. and clocked out at 12:00 p.m. and stayed within the OCC premises during that period. Respondent admitted that he left the court during office hours and after attending to personal matters in the Supreme Court, returned to his work station at 4:30 p.m. and attended to his duties until 5:03 p.m. The letter dated 9 March 2007 of two other court employees, Galang and Maglanque, bears this out. While he did leave the court without informing or seeking permission from his superiors, he requested another employee to inform his co-employees of his whereabouts and to temporarily attend to his janitorial responsibilities. The OCA finds that respondent's act of leaving his office during the afternoon office hours without any permission from his superiors although he clocked in for that afternoon constitutes simple misconduct for which he should be penalized with suspension without pay for one month and one day. The OCA cites Sec. 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel which provides that court employees shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence and that they shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.
The OCA also notes in its report that there is another pending administrative charge against respondent for Dereliction of Duty and Misconduct docketed as A.M. No, OCA IPI No. 07-2476-P which has been referred to the Executive Judge, RTC, San Fernando City, Pampanga for investigation.
Frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours is penalized, under the Civil Service Commission Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases (CSC Revised Uniform Rules), with the minimum penalty of suspension for six months and one day for the first offense and with dismissal for the second offense. Falsification of an official document such as the DTR is considered a grave offense under the CSC Revised Uniform Rules and is penalized with dismissal for the first offense.
Respondent's absence, from the office for a few hours in one day is inconsistent with his declaration in his DTR that he was present at work during those hours. This is tantamount to falsification. However, Sec. 53 of the CSC Revised Uniform Rules grants the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances even if not pleaded by the respondent. In the case at bar, there is nothing from the records that would indicate that the unauthorized absences are habitual or a frequent occurrence. It appears also that this is the first time that such infractions have been reported and subject of an administrative investigation. Respondent also readily admitted his offense.
Considering the foregoing circumstances, the recommendation of the OCA that respondent be found liable for simple misconduct is well-taken. Misconduct has been defined as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior."[1] Simple misconduct is classified as a less grave offense, punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months.[2] The penalty of suspension for one month and one day is appropriate in this case.
Respondent should also be reminded that public office is a public trust. The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Those involved in the administration of justice must live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service.[3]
WHEREFORE, Ronald C. Canlas, Utility Worker I, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, San Fernando City, Pampanga, is found GUILTY. of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and SUSPENDED for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, the same to take effect immediately upon receipt of this resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall warrant a more severe penalty.
Very truly yours.
LUDICH1 YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
LUDICH1 YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Abogado, Jr. v. Gurtiza, A.M. No. SB-04-12-P, 27 June 2006, 493 SCRA 64, 72.
[2] Rule IV, Section 52 B (1) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[3] Re: Alleged Tampering of Daily Time Records (DTK) of Sherry B. Cervantes, Court Stenographer HI, Br. 18, RTC, Manila, A.M. No. 03-8-463-RTC. 20 May'2004, 428 SCRA 572, 575-576.
