June 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. P-10-2786 : June 08, 2011]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. MA. LOURDES A. LAQUINDANUM, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, ANGELES CITY, PAMPANGA [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 10-1-29-RTC - RE: ALLEGED TAMPERING OF DAILY TIME RECORDS BY MA. LOURDES A. LAQUINDANUM, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, ANGELES CITY, PAMPANGA
A.M. No. P-10-2786: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MA. LOURDES A. LAQUINDANUM, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, ANGELES CITY, PAMPANGA [Formerly A.M. No. 10-1-29-RTC - RE: ALLEGED TAMPERING OF DAILY TIME RECORDS BY MA. LOURDES A. LAQUINDANUM, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, ANGELES CITY, PAMPANGA]
In a letter dated 20 January 2009, then Deputy Court Administrator Antonio H. Dujua requested Presiding Judge Bernardita G. Erum (Judge Erum) of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Angeles City, Pampanga, to submit a report, together with the pertinent pages of the court's logbook of attendance and a written explanation of Ma. Lourdes A. Laquindanum (Laquindanum), Court Stenographer III of that court, on the perceived irregularities in the entries in the latter's Daily Time Record (DTR) for the month of October 2008, particularly on the following days: 7, 10, 14, 16, 20, 21,22, 23, and 28.
Laquindanum, in her letter-explanation dated 10 February 2009, explained that she was on her last trimester of her pregnancy which she said greatly affected her mobility. She started her maternity leave on her exact due date because she had to finish all her pending court orders and some transcripts of stenographic notes. She averred that the court's logbook would show that she was present on those dates in question. She claimed it was never her intention to alter her bundy card but admitted that she corrected the entries in her DTR "to jibe with the time I logged-in in the logbook." She further disclosed that there were times when she would forget to punch-in her bundy card in the morning because she was in a hurry to report to the office and prepare her things for trial. She had no bad record in the past. She had been in the government service for 19 years and now seeks consideration as she wants to continue hen service in the judiciary.
Judge Erum submitted a letter-report dated 11 February 2009, together with the fetter-explanation of Laquindanum. Judge Erum averred that Laquindanum is an asset to the court and is one of her most efficient and competent stenographers. Judge Erum further averred that Laquindanum is honest and industrious and she did not find any problem with her especially in the drafting of court orders and decisions. The court orders and transcripts of stenographic notes of the proceedings seldom need corrections as they are clear and neat. Judge Erum thus joined Laquindanum in her plea that she be given another chance to continue her employment as court stenographer.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found sufficient evidence to hold Laquindanum administratively liable. The OCA recommended that Laquindanum be found guilty of dishonesty for tampering her DTR/bundy card and that she be fined P10,000, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
In her letter-explanation, Laquindanum admitted that she corrected the entries in her DTR/bundy card but it was never her intention to alter her DTR/bundy card "but only to jibe with the time I logged-in in the logbook." The court's logbook showed that Laquindanum was indeed present on the dates in question. Laquindanum disclosed that there were times when she would forget to punch-in her DTR/bundy card in the morning because she was in a hurry to report to the office and prepare her things for trial. If this were true, the time indicated would have been handwritten in the DTR/bundy card to "jibe with the time" she logged-in in the logbook. But, except for the time "8:00" that was handwritten on the DTR/bundy card on the 17th day of October 2008 that reflected the time she logged-in in the logbook, her DTR/bundy card showed the time that she logged-in in the morning which was punched-in and printed from the bundy clock. We surmised that Laquidanum merely wrote in the logbook the time that was punched-in in the DTR/bundy card so that the logbook would jibe with the time as reflected in the DTR/bundy card, and not the other way around. On days particularly October 7, 10, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 28, the time indicated in the morning slot was not handwritten but printed using the bundy clock. Normally, the time in the afternoon is printed with a bar on top of the minutes to indicate that the time is in the afternoon. There is no such bar for the time-in in the morning. But, upon close scrutiny of the DTR/bundy card of Laquindanum, the time-in in the morning as printed on those questioned dates had a bar on top of the minutes. It can be deduced that Laquindanum punched-out her DTR/bundy card twice in the afternoon/evening so that there would be a time that is punched-in in the morning slot and another in the afternoon slot of the DTR/bundy card, with a 1, 2 or 3 minute-difference. As likewise found by the OCA, "there were traces of correction fluid before the digit '7' in some entries, while lines were still visible in other entries, which could mean that the respondent may have logged-in in the afternoon." Further, even the time that Laquindanum punched-out in the DTR/bundy card did not reflect the time that she logged-out in the logbook. Clearly, Laquindanum tampered her DTR/bundy card.
Under Section 1 of Rule XVII on Government Office Hours of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, officers and employees are mandated to strictly observe the prescribed office hours, the same to be reflected in the time card. Section 4 of the same Rule also provides that falsification or irregularities in the keeping of time records will render the guilty officer or employee administratively liable.
OCA Circular No. 7-2003 also states that court personnel should indicate in their bundy cards the "truthful and accurate times" of their arrival at, and departure from, the office. The Court has ruled in Garcia v. Bada[1] and Servino v. Adolfo[2] that court employees must follow the clear mandate of OCA Circular No. 7-2003. Court employees who commit irregularities in the keeping of time records are administratively liable.[3] Falsification of time records constitutes dishonesty, which is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service[4] under Section 22(a) of the Omnibus Rules and Section 52, paragraph A(l), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
However, we have, on several occasions involving dishonesty, meted out the penalty lower than dismissal from the service, after taking into consideration certain mitigating circumstances such as the employee's length of service, satisfactory service, feeling of remorse, acknowledgment of infractions, advanced age, family circumstances and other humanitarian and equitable considerations. This is in accordance with Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service which grants the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the proper penalty.
In Re: Failure of Jose Dante E. Guerrero to Register His Time In and Out in Chronolog Time Recorder Machine on Several Dates,[5] the Court imposed the penalty of six months suspension on respondent Guerrero who was found guilty of dishonesty for falsifying his time record. The Court considered as mitigating circumstances, respondent's good performance rating, his 13 years of satisfactory service in the judiciary, and his acknowledgment of and remorse for his infractions.
In Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Secretary 1, and Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division,[6] respondents were found guilty of dishonesty, and the Court meted out a penalty of suspension for six months instead of imposing the most severe penalty of dismissal from service. In imposing a lower penalty, the Court took into consideration various mitigating circumstances. For respondent Esmerio, the Court considered her 38 long years of service in the judiciary, her faithful observance of office rules and regulations, her acknowledgment of her infractions and feelings of remorse, her retirement on 31 May 2005, and family circumstances (i.e., support of a 73-year old maiden aunt and a 7-year old adopted girl). For respondent Ting, the Court took note of her 21 continued years of service in the judiciary, her acknowledgment of her infractions and feelings of remorse, the importance and complexity of the nature of her duties in the preparation of the drafts of the Minutes of the Agenda, the fact that she stays well beyond office hours to finish her duties, and her "Very Satisfactory" Performance Rating with a total score of 42 points which is the highest among the employees of the Third Division of the Court.
In Atty. Reyes-Domingo v. Morales,[7] Branch Clerk of Court Morales was found guilty of dishonesty in not reflecting the correct time in his DTR. He was imposed a fine of P5,000.
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Saa[8] Clerk of Court Saa of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Camarines Norte made it appear in his DTR that he was present in court on 5 and 6 June 1997, when all the while, he was attending hearings of his own case in Quezon City. He was fined P5,000.
In In Re: Irregularities in the Use of Logbook and Daily Time Records by Clerk of Court Raquel D.J. Razon, Cash Clerk Joel M. Magtuloy and Utility Worker Tiburcio Morales, MTC-OCC, Guagua, Pampanga,[9] the Court imposed a fine of P2,000 on respondent Razon for making it appear that she was present in the office on 7 September 2004. Respondent Razon acknowledged her offense, offered sincere apologies, and promised not to do it again. She had been in government service for 27 years. This was her second administrative case as she was previously charged with discourtesy, insubordination and violation of office regulation and procedure in A.M. No. P-97-89 but the case was dismissed on 10 October 1989. The Court did not impose the penalty of dismissal and instead fined respondent P2,000.
In the present case, we have considered several mitigating circumstances in the determination of the penalty to be imposed on Laquindanum. This is the first time that Laquindanum had committed an infraction. She has been in the government service for 19 years. She was in her last trimester of her pregnancy when these infractions occurred. Judge Erum, her superior, vouched that Laquindanum is one of her most efficient and competent stenographers. We reduce the penalty of dismissal to a fine in the amount of P10,000, as recommended by the OCA.
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that everyone In the judiciary, from the presiding judge to the clerk, must always be beyond reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them free of any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. Public service requires utmost integrity and discipline. A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity, for no less than the Constitution mandates the principle that �a public office is a public trust and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency." As the administration of justice is a sacred task, the persons involved in it ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity. Their conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be above suspicion. Thus, every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.[10]
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Ma. Lourdes A. Laquindanum, Court Stenographer III of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Angeles City GUILTY of tampering with her Daily Time Record. We FINE her P10,000, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes
[1] A.M. No. P-07-23 11, 23 August 2007, 530 SCRA 779, 783.[2] A.M. No. P-06-2204, 30 November 2006, 509 SCRA 42, 52.
[3] Duque v. Aspiras, 502 Phil. 15: 23 (2005).
[4] Anonymous v. Grande, A.M. No. P-06-2114, 5 December 2006, 509 SCRA 495, 501.
[5] A.M. No. 2005-07-SC, 19 April 2006, 487 SCRA 352, 367-369.
[6] 502 Phil. 264, 280-281 (2005).
[7] 396 Phil. 150, 165-166(2000).
[8] 457 Phil. 25, 29-30 (2003).
[9] A.M. No. P-06-2243, 26 September 2006, 503 SCRA 52, 64.
[10] Re: Report on the Irregularity in the Use of Bundy Clock by Alberto Salamat, Sheriff IV, RTC-Br. 80, Malolos City, A.M. No. P-08-2-194, 27 November 2008, 572 SCRA 19, 29-30.
