February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-10-2768 : February 14, 2010] CLARENCE JONATHAN WOOD V. MARILYN S. LUNGAY, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, TAGBILARAN CITY :
[A.M. No. P-10-2768 : February 14, 2010]
CLARENCE JONATHAN WOOD V. MARILYN S. LUNGAY, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, TAGBILARAN CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated 17 February 2010
A.M. No. P-10-2768 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3118-P] -Clarence Jonathan Wood v. Marilyn S. Lungay, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Tagbilaran City.
By his March 24, 2009 Complaint-Affidavit,[1] Clarence Jonathan Wood (complainant) charged Marilyn S. Lungay (respondent), Court Stenographer III of Branch 3 of the Regional Trial Court Tagbilaran City, Bohol, with conduct unbecoming of a court employee, grave misconduct and dishonesty.
Complainant and respondent entered into an agreement to engage m the realty business. Kayla'a Development Corporation was thus formed, of which complainant was the president and respondent the treasurer. Complainant later complained that respondent breached and abused his confidence, citing instances which were synthesized by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) as follows: xxxx
x x x x [2] (underscoring supplied)
Complainant thus demanded, among other things, the return of the P90;000. which respondent failed to do. Complainant also filed criminal complaints against respondent and a civil case to enjoin her from attempting to oust him from the corporation.[3]
In her Comment,[4] respondent alleged, inter alia, as synthesized by the OCA, as follows:
Complainant submitted his Reply to respondent's Comment and Supplemental Evidence.[6]
By October 22, 2009 Report[7], the OCA came up with the following evaluation, quoted verbatim:
It is undisputed from the facts that the respondent Court Stenographer is an incorporator and an officer in the corporation she and complainant formed with the latter providing the capital to develop the beach resort, and, thus, violated Administrative Circular No. 5 (Re: Prohibition for All Officials and Employees of the Judiciary to Work as Insurance Agents),[8] dated October 4, 1988, which prohibits all officials and employees of the judiciary from engaging directly in any private business, vocation or profession. There is no distinction whether respondent's business caters to court personnel in particular or that she utilizes her time outside of office hours to pursue her business. It should be emphasized that the public trust character of the office proscribes her from engaging in any private activity.
It is also clear from the facts that there was a sour business relationship between complainant and respondent Court Stenographer, arising from alleged falsifications, mismanagement, misunderstanding, and office politics. It cannot be said that the business was only between complainant and respondent . . ., and that the disagreement between them was only for themselves. It is obvious that it affected the corporation, its employees, third parties, and respondent... as a civil servant.
xxxx
The Court has invariably imposed commensurate sanctions upon court employees for violation of Administrative Circular No. 5, depending on the gravity of the offense committed and, likewise, taking into consideration the personal records of the respondent employees as to prior administrative cases instituted against them. This is not the first time respondent . . . was administratively sanctioned. On March 15, 1999, respondent was previously admonished in OCA IPI No. 97-292-P entitled; "Obdulio Bondal vs. Marilyn S. Lungay" for habitual tardiness, frequent unauthorized absences, and engaging in private business.
x x x x[9] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The OCA thus recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of six months without pay.
The evaluation cum recommendation of the OCA is well-taken.
The nature of work of officials and employees of the Judiciary requires them to serve with maximum efficiency and the highest degree of devotion to duty in order to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary. Thus, Administrative Circular No. 5, which enjoins officials and employees of the Judiciary "from being commissioned as insurance agents or from engaging in any related activities," was issued in order to ensure that the entire time of officials and employees of the Judiciary be devoted to their official work. Administrative Circular No. 5 applies even if the private business, vocation or profession would be undertaken outside office hours.[10]
In imposing a penalty for violation of Administrative Circular No. 5, the Court takes into consideration the gravity of the offense committed and the presence of any administrative case instituted against the respondent.[11]
Considering that, as reflected in the above-quoted OCA evaluation cum recommendation, respondent was previously administratively charged and was admonished for habitual tardiness, frequent unauthorized absences, and engaging in private business, the recommended penalty of suspension for six months without pay is in order.
WHEREFORE, respondent Marilyn S. Lungay, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Tagbilaran City is, effective immediately,"SUSPENDED from office for a period of Six (6) Months without pay, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin. and Martin S. Villarama. Jr.. Members, First Division, this- 17th day of February 2010.
A.M. No. P-10-2768 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3118-P] -Clarence Jonathan Wood v. Marilyn S. Lungay, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Tagbilaran City.
By his March 24, 2009 Complaint-Affidavit,[1] Clarence Jonathan Wood (complainant) charged Marilyn S. Lungay (respondent), Court Stenographer III of Branch 3 of the Regional Trial Court Tagbilaran City, Bohol, with conduct unbecoming of a court employee, grave misconduct and dishonesty.
Complainant and respondent entered into an agreement to engage m the realty business. Kayla'a Development Corporation was thus formed, of which complainant was the president and respondent the treasurer. Complainant later complained that respondent breached and abused his confidence, citing instances which were synthesized by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) as follows: xxxx
1. Complainant sent P90 000 to respondent ... as downpayment for the purchase of a lot and subsequently gave her P1,600,000 as full payment but later on, he learned that the seller was only able to receive P1,200,000, and that the P90 000 as downpayment did not form part of the actual payment. Respondent ... also did not disclose the transaction. Complainant further alleges that the real estate agents complained that they were given commission much less that what was agreed upon;
2. Respondent ... falsified Board Resolutions by making it appear that there was a meeting held. She also forged the signature of her daughter and altered documents so that she could sign the withdrawals alone, using the money to finance her personal car loan;
3. Complainant made some inquiries and he discovered that respondent � - - made cuts on almost all transactions of the corporation. She cannot also present a deposit slip or any document showing any deposit or withdrawal of the corporation when she was confronted by complainant about the sale of a portion of a property of the corporation;
4. Respondent ... intimidated the workers of the corporation to acknowledge her as the real owner of all the properties of the corporation, saying that because of her position as a court employee, she could always find a way to have complainant deported.
x x x x [2] (underscoring supplied)
Complainant thus demanded, among other things, the return of the P90;000. which respondent failed to do. Complainant also filed criminal complaints against respondent and a civil case to enjoin her from attempting to oust him from the corporation.[3]
In her Comment,[4] respondent alleged, inter alia, as synthesized by the OCA, as follows:
. . . Complainant's demand to return the P90,000 was made only after there were several cases filed against her and her family. If she really committed the alleged irregularities, then complainant should have made the demand earlier during the time of transaction and not before the court and the prosecutor's offices.
xxxx
Respondent . . . denies falsifying a board resolution to buy a car. She said that she used her own car to trade in for a new car for the use and ownership of the corporation.
xxxx
Complainant's filing of multiple cases against respondent... was made in order to pressure the latter to surrender their share to the former without any consideration, [5] (underscoring supplied)
Complainant submitted his Reply to respondent's Comment and Supplemental Evidence.[6]
By October 22, 2009 Report[7], the OCA came up with the following evaluation, quoted verbatim:
It is undisputed from the facts that the respondent Court Stenographer is an incorporator and an officer in the corporation she and complainant formed with the latter providing the capital to develop the beach resort, and, thus, violated Administrative Circular No. 5 (Re: Prohibition for All Officials and Employees of the Judiciary to Work as Insurance Agents),[8] dated October 4, 1988, which prohibits all officials and employees of the judiciary from engaging directly in any private business, vocation or profession. There is no distinction whether respondent's business caters to court personnel in particular or that she utilizes her time outside of office hours to pursue her business. It should be emphasized that the public trust character of the office proscribes her from engaging in any private activity.
It is also clear from the facts that there was a sour business relationship between complainant and respondent Court Stenographer, arising from alleged falsifications, mismanagement, misunderstanding, and office politics. It cannot be said that the business was only between complainant and respondent . . ., and that the disagreement between them was only for themselves. It is obvious that it affected the corporation, its employees, third parties, and respondent... as a civil servant.
xxxx
The Court has invariably imposed commensurate sanctions upon court employees for violation of Administrative Circular No. 5, depending on the gravity of the offense committed and, likewise, taking into consideration the personal records of the respondent employees as to prior administrative cases instituted against them. This is not the first time respondent . . . was administratively sanctioned. On March 15, 1999, respondent was previously admonished in OCA IPI No. 97-292-P entitled; "Obdulio Bondal vs. Marilyn S. Lungay" for habitual tardiness, frequent unauthorized absences, and engaging in private business.
x x x x[9] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The OCA thus recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of six months without pay.
The evaluation cum recommendation of the OCA is well-taken.
The nature of work of officials and employees of the Judiciary requires them to serve with maximum efficiency and the highest degree of devotion to duty in order to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary. Thus, Administrative Circular No. 5, which enjoins officials and employees of the Judiciary "from being commissioned as insurance agents or from engaging in any related activities," was issued in order to ensure that the entire time of officials and employees of the Judiciary be devoted to their official work. Administrative Circular No. 5 applies even if the private business, vocation or profession would be undertaken outside office hours.[10]
In imposing a penalty for violation of Administrative Circular No. 5, the Court takes into consideration the gravity of the offense committed and the presence of any administrative case instituted against the respondent.[11]
Considering that, as reflected in the above-quoted OCA evaluation cum recommendation, respondent was previously administratively charged and was admonished for habitual tardiness, frequent unauthorized absences, and engaging in private business, the recommended penalty of suspension for six months without pay is in order.
WHEREFORE, respondent Marilyn S. Lungay, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Tagbilaran City is, effective immediately,"SUSPENDED from office for a period of Six (6) Months without pay, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin. and Martin S. Villarama. Jr.. Members, First Division, this- 17th day of February 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd)ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
(Sgd)ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-7.
[2] Id. at 151-152.
[3] Id. at 150-151.
[4] Id. at 42-50.
[5] Id. at 151-152.
[6] Id. at 145-146.
[7] Id. at 150-155.
[8] It was issued by then Chief Justice MarceloB. Feraan on October 4, 1988. Administrative Circular No. 5 reads;
In line with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, the Executive Department issued Memorandum Circular No. 17, dated September 4, 1986 authorizing heads of the government offices to grant their employees permission to engage directly m private business, vocation or profession x x x outside office hours."
However, in its En Bane resolution dated October 1, 1987; denying the request of Atty. Froilan L. Valdez of the Office of Associate Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, to be commissioned as a Notary Public, the Court expressed the view that the provisions of Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the Executive Department are not applicable to officials or employees of the courts considering the express prohibition of the Rules of Court and the nature of their work which requires them to serve with highest degree of efficiency and responsibility, in order to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary. The same policy was adopted in Administrative Matter No. 88-6-002-SC, June 21, 1988, where the Court denied the request of Ms. Esther C. Rabanal, Technical Assistant II, Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services of this Court, to work as an insurance agent after office hours including Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Indeed, the entire time of Judiciary officials and employees must be devoted to government service to [ensure] efficiency and speedy administration of justice.
ACCORDINGLY, all officials and employees of the Judiciary are hereby enjoined frorn being commissioned as insurance agents or from engaging; in any related activities and, to immediately desist therefrom if presently engaged thereat, (underscoring supplied)
[9] Rollo, pp. 153-155.
[10] Go v. Remotigue, A.M. No. P-05-1969, June 12, 2008, 554 SCRA 242. 250-251; Concerned Citizen v. Bautista, A.M. No. P-04-1876, August 31,2004,437 SCRA 234,237.
[11] Gov. Remotigue, A.M. No. P-05-1969, June 12, 2008, 554 SCRA 242, 250-251.
