ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ A.M. No. OCA I.P.I. No. 95-14-P. January 13, 1999]
MELINDA P. IRADER, et al. vs. SYLVIA R. YAN, STENOGRAPHER et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 13, 1999.
A.M. No. OCA I.P.P. No. 95-14-P (Melina P. Irader, et al. vs. Sylvia R. Yan, Stenographer, MTC Brooke's Point Palawan.) and A.M. No. MTJ-94-1014 (Julieta SJ Sespe�e vs. Sylvia R. Yan, Stenographer, MTC, Brooke's Point Palawan.)
This jointly resolves the two administrative complaints filed against respondent Sylvia R. Yan, Stenographer Reporter of Municipal Trial Court, Brooke's Point, Palawan.
On July 12, 1994, Melina P. Jode Ilagan and Julieta Sespe�e filed a complaint against respondent Sylvia R. Yan charging her with gross violation of the Civil Service Law and pertinent rules and regulations laid down by the Supreme Court.1 [Sworn letter Complaint, Rollo, pp. 1-2.]
Complainants alleged that respondents officially enrolled and actually studied at Palawan State College-Extramural Studies Center (PSC-ESC) at Brooke's Point, Palawan, during the first and second semester of school year 1993-1994 and first semester of school year 1994-1995. Respondent allegedly ended her classes during office hours but indicated her Daily Time Records that she was present in Court during the prescribed working hours.
Docketed as A.M. No. OCA I.P.I. No. 95-14-P entitled "Melinda P. Irader, Jode Ilagan and Julieta Sespe�e vs. Sylvia R. Yan, Stenographer Reporter, Municipal Trial Court, Brooke's Point, Palawan," the Third Division of this Court, in a Resolution dated July 12, 1995, required respondent to file her Comment.
For failing to comply on time, the same Division issued another Resolution on January 24, 1996 requiring respondent to show cause why should not be disciplinary dealt with and to file the required Comment, both within ten (10) days from notice.2 [Third Division Resolution, Rollo, p. 22.]
Respondent, in a letter dated February 13, 1996, explained that she already sent her Comment to the July 12, 1994 Complaint sometime in August, 1995 addressed to Atty. Alfredo P. Marasigan, Assistant Clerk of Court of the Third Division.3 [Respondent sent her Comment through registered mail and received by the Documentation on December 5, 1995. Instead of forwarding the Comment to the 2nd Division, it was inadvertently forwarded to the 3rd Division and incorporated in the records of the other administrative complaint against respondent.] Attached to this letter is a copy of the August 21, 1995 Comment consisting of two pages, where she admitted having enrolled during in question, but denied attending classes during office hours.
On November 13, 1996, the case was referred to then Vice Executive Judge Panfilo S. Salva of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan for investigation, report and recommendation.
Meanwhile, another complaint dated July 15, 1994 was filed by Julieta SJ. Sespe�e against respondent which was docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-94-1014. This was in connection with the missing salary check of Esperanza Masangacay, a former employee of Municipal Trial Court, Brooke's Point, Palawan. In a Resolution dated November 15, 1995, the Second Division of this Court referred the investigation of the second complaint to Judge Filomeno A. Vergara of the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan.
The respective judges then proceeded with the investigation of the complaints assigned to them.
In the meantime, on December 5, 1995, the Documentation Division of this Court received the August 21, 1995 Comment to the Complaint dated July 12, 1995 Comment to the Complaint dated July 12, 1994 which is the subject of A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 95-14-P. Instead of forwarding the aforesaid Comment to the Third Division for its inclusion in the records of A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. MTJ-94-1014. The Second Division in turn caused this Comment to be forwarded to Judge Vergara who was conducting the investigation of the second complaint docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-94-1014.
On January 8, 1997 Judge Vergara recommended the dismissal of A.M. No. MTJ-94-1014 due to complainant's failure to prosecute. In relation to the first complaint, the pertinent records of which were inadvertently forwarded to him, he found that there was substantial evidence to hold that respondent attended her classes during office hours. In particular, he gave more credence to the testimony of Mr. Gregorio Echague IV, respondent's instructor in her anthropology and philosophy classes during SY 1993-1994. Due to this, he recommended that respondent be meted with the appropriate sanction without specifying the penalty to be imposed.
On the other hand, Judge Salva, in his Report of February 21, 1997, recommended the dismissal of A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 95-14-P, saying that respondent, in enrolling at PSC-ESC, was only motivated by a sincere desire to advance professionally. He said that it is not unusual for a student to make special arrangements with his instructor and for the latter to agree thereto, even if in agreeing to such special arrangement, the instructor concerned may violate a school policy.
The records of these cases were forwarded to the Office of the Court Administrator, together with the investigating judges' respective report and recommendation.
On November 17, 1997, the Office of the Court Administrator upheld the dismissal of A.M. MTJ No. 94-1014 regarding the missing salary check of Esperanza Masangcay for complainant's failure to prosecute. It took note of the fact that it was not Ms. Masangca who filed the complaint, but Julieta Sespe�e. As regards A.M. OCA I.P.I No, 95-14-P, the Office of the Court Administrator proceeded with the evaluation despite the conflicting reports of the two (2) investigating judges.
After a careful scrutiny of the records consisting of the complaints, comment and the reports, said Office found that respondent was indeed enrolled at Palawan State College during the whole school year 1993-1994 and first semester of school year 1994-1995 as respondent herself admitted. Sufficient evidence has been presented supporting the allegation that she was attending her classes during office hours. The class record of Mr. Echague, Anthropology class professor of the respondent, presented in court during the March 27, 1996 hearing showed that she was present in her class on August 4, 9, 16, 18 and September 6, 8 and 20, 1993. It also appeared that she took three (3) quizzes between August 8 and September 8, 1993, wherein she got the grades of 94%, 100% and 78%. Despite these glaring proofs, respondent reported in her Daily Time Records that she was present in court on the above-mentioned dates.
Hence, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 95-14-P be formally docketed as an administrative complaint against respondent. For her unauthorized attendance in class during office hours, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended suspension of one (1) month without pay with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
The Office of the Court Administrator went on to say that Administrative Circular No. 5,4 [Dated October 4, 1998.] in essence, provides that the entire time judiciary officials and employees must be devoted to government service to insure efficient and speedy administration of justice. The act of the respondent of frequently leaving the office during office hours necessarily hampered her efficiency as court stenographer. It bears stressing that the nature of work of those connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, requires them to serve with the highest degree of efficiency and responsibility, in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.5 [Cristeta Orfila vs. Rona S. Quiros, A.M. No. P-97-1234, August 20, 1997.]
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator.
No less than the Constitution mandates that "public office is a public trust." Public Officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.6 [Section I, Article XI, 1987 Constitution.] The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charge with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. This Court cannot countenance any act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice that would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.7 [Re: Ms. Teresita S. Sabido, A.M. No. 94-3-20-MCTC, March 17, 1995.] The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees additionally provides that every public servant shall at all times uphold public interest over his or her personal interest.8 [Gano vs. Leonen, A.M. No. P-92-756, May 3, 1994.]
In the case at bar, respondent failed to abide by this mandate, specifically in relation to the subject of A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 95-14-P
IN VIEW WHEREOF, this Court order that:
(a) the complaint subject of Administrative Matter MTJ 94-1014 be dismissed for complainant's failure to prosecute;
(b) Administrative Matter OCA I.P.I. No. 95-14-P be formally docketed as an administrative complaint against respondent; and
(c) Respondent be suspended from office for one (1) month without pay for her unauthorized attendance in class during office hours, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will de dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
