Search for www.chanrobles.com
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
FIRST DIVISION
A.M. No. P-02-1610 : November 27, 2003
JUDGE RAPHAEL B. YRASTORZA, SR., Presiding Judge, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 14, Cebu City, complainant,
vs. MICHAEL A. LATIZA, Court Aide,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cebu City, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Facts
Judge Raphael B. Yrastorza, Sr. (Judge Yrastorza), presiding
judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 14 (RTC-Branch 14),
issued Office Memo No. 3 dated 22 August 2001 (Memo) addressed to respondent
Michael A. Latiza (respondent), Court Aide of the same court. The Memo stated that respondent was absent
for work without leave on 13, 20, 21, and 22 August 2001 and did not notify the
office of the reason for such absences. The co-employees of respondent saw him
at the Palace of Justice
loitering and reeking of liquor.
Respondents actuations being detrimental to the service, Judge
Yrastorza gave respondent seventy-two hours from receipt of the Memo to explain
why no disciplinary action should be taken against him.
In her Affidavit dated 29 August 2001, Cecilia A. Deguilmo
(Deguilmo), Clerk of Court V of RTC-Branch 14, stated that on 13 August 2001
respondent was absent without filing an application for leave. Deguilmo also stated that respondent did not
inform the office of the cause for his absence. Deguilmo further stated that on
20 August 2001 respondent did not show up for work from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon
but went to the office at past noontime to get something from his office
drawer. Deguilmo noticed respondent to be unusually flushed in the face
(reddened) and that he reeked with liquor.
Deguilmo stated that respondent then left the office without a
word. Lastly, Deguilmo stated that from 20 August 2001 up to 24 August 2001, respondent was again
absent without submitting an application for leave of absence.
In her Affidavit dated 29
August 2001, Desiree A. Salvador (Salvador),
Stenographer of the same court, stated that on 20 August 2001, respondent was at the main door inside the
Palace of Justice.
Salvador took the occasion to
remind respondent of his unpaid bill for long distance calls he made using the
office phone. Salvador
noticed that respondents face was red, his eyes were sleepy and he smelled
of liquor.
On 29 August 2001,
respondent, with the assistance of Atty. Elisa Porio (Atty. Porio) of the
Public Attorneys Office, submitted a written explanation that he was under
emotional stress and could hardly sleep well because of some family
problems. Respondent admitted his absences from 20 August to 24 August 2001 because my
8-month-old child had a fever and I had barely enough money to spend for our
food and medicines. Respondent admitted
that he was at the vicinity of the Palace
of Justice on 20 August 2001 because he was looking for
moneylenders who could extend credit to him.
Respondent admitted he had a few drinks at home before he went to the Palace
of Justice because it was the only
way where I could approach moneylenders courageously and without shame.
In his written explanation, respondent claimed he sent his wife
to the office on 24 August 2001
to inform the clerk of court of the reason for his absence. Respondent also claimed that he prepared his
application for leave for 20 August
2001 to 24 August 2001. However, respondent alleged that he was not
able to submit his leave application sooner for approval because he could not
produce a medical certificate for his son whom he did not bring to a doctor for
lack of money. Respondent likewise
admitted that he forgot to file his application for leave of absence for 13 August 2001. Respondent asked for compassion and
understanding of his present predicament. Attached to his explanation were his
applications for leave of absence for 13, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 August 2001, which he submitted
for approval by the presiding judge.
On 8 September 2001,
Judge Yrastorza issued a Memorandum appointing Legal Researcher Teotimo Vallar
II, Stenographer Elizabeth Morata and Clerk III Grace Pauline Llido, all of
RTC-Branch 14, as members of a Panel of Investigators (Panel) to receive
evidence on this case and report thereon.
Atty. Porio represented respondent.
Findings and Recommendations
of the Panel of Investigators
The Panel submitted on 19
October 2001 the following findings:
(1) That Michael Latiza
is the incumbent Court Aide of RTC Branch 14, Cebu
City;
(2) That on 13 August 2001, respondent absented himself from work
without permission, without filing his leave of absence;
(3) That again starting 20 August 2001, he absented himself from work
without filing his Application for Leave, without asking prior permission;
(4) That on the same date, 20 August 2001, at
past 12:00 noon, respondent came to RTC Branch 14 inebriated (as admitted), he
was likewise seen at the vicinity of the main door of the Palace of Justice
loitering between 1:30 to 2:00 P.M., in the same condition;
(5) That respondent absented himself from work
starting 20 August 2001 up to 24 August 2001 or for the entire week and it was
only on 24 August 2001 when respondents wife came to inform the office of the
absence of respondent;
(6) That it was only on 27 August 2001 that respondent filed his
application for leave for all the aforesaid absences (Exh. 1-A and 1-B).1cräläwvirtualibräry
The Panel likewise submitted on 25 November 2001 its recommendations. On the charge of
absences without filing an application for leave, the Panel recommended the
exoneration of respondent since there was substantial compliance when
respondent submitted his applications for leave of absence on 27 August 2001, although late.
On the charge of drunkenness during office hours which occurred
at past 12:00 noon to 2:00 p.m.
of 20 August 2001, the
Panel opined that respondent was technically absent and not on duty. The Panel stated that respondent did not
commit irrational acts but merely exhibited flushed or red face and sleepy
eyes, and smelled of liquor. The Panel, however, found respondent guilty of
simple misconduct and recommended that respondent be meted the penalty of
one-month suspension without pay. The Panel observed that respondent acted with
arrogance and disrespect in entering the Palace
of Justice reeking of liquor. Before this, respondent displayed himself at
the main door of the Palace of Justice
doing nothing as if idling his time away.
In the Resolution dated 11
January 2002, Judge Yrastorza approved the Findings and
Recommendations of the Panel that respondent be held liable for arrogance and
disrespect and for simple misconduct. He directed the forwarding of the entire
records of this case to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for
possible review and implementation.
OCA Report and
Recommendation
OCA agreed with the finding of the Panel that respondent is
guilty of simple misconduct. OCA opined that basic decorum demands that court
employees behave in a manner that would protect the integrity of the courts and
promote public confidence in the judiciary. Respondent should be mindful that
when he showed up drunk at the Palace
of Justice on 20 August 2001, he ignored the negative impact
his misconduct caused his co-employees and the public present at that time. OCA
recommended the suspension of respondent for one month and one day without pay
for simple misconduct.
The Courts
Ruling
In the Resolution of 19
February 2003, the Court required the parties to manifest if they
were willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed.
Judge Yrastorza manifested that he was submitting the case for resolution based
on the pleadings and records on file.
Likewise, in a letter dated 24
March 2003 addressed to the Court Administrator, Judge Yrastorza
manifested that respondent had not been reporting for work since 10 February 2003 and thus respondent
could no longer submit a manifestation. Judge Yrastorza further averred that
respondent reported to the judges office only to submit a letter of
resignation dated 19 March 2003, his resignation to take effect on the same
date.
In a letter dated 18
February 2003 addressed to the Court Administrator, Atty. Aurora
Ventura-Villamor, Branch Clerk of Court of RTC-Branch 14, stated that
respondent had been absent without leave since 10 February 2003 without any explanation. Atty. Ventura-Villamors
letter also stated that respondent did not submit his Daily Time Record for
January 2003. The letter further stated
that money amounting to P118,040 inside an attach case was found to be
short of P24,800. The money, kept in the locked steel storage
cabinet of the office of the branch clerk of court, was presented as evidence
in Criminal Case No. CBU-50474 entitled People of the Philippines v. Danilo
Ceniza. In her letter, Atty.
Ventura-Villamor stated that respondent admitted liability for the loss of the
amount, and that the police was investigating the matter. Atty. Ventura-Villamor, as branch clerk,
requested the withholding of respondents salary.
On 14 October 2003,
the Court En Banc issued a Resolution
in A.M. No. 03-10-576-RTC accepting the
resignation of respondent, without prejudice to the outcome of the proceedings
in the administrative complaint against him. The Court further directed the
Financial Management Office of OCA to withhold P50,000 from whatever
benefits might be due respondent.
Thus, in the instant administrative case, the only issue for
resolution is whether respondent is guilty of the charges of unauthorized
absences and of drunkenness amounting to simple misconduct.
On the charge of unauthorized absences, respondent was admittedly
absent on 13, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24
August 2001. He belatedly filed his application for leave of
absence on 27 August 2001.
There is no showing of any deliberate intent to defy office rules on absences.
In his letter to Judge Yrastorza, respondent claimed that on 27 August 2001, he prepared his
application for emergency leave. However,
respondent claimed that he was not able to submit the application sooner for
approval because he could not produce a medical certificate for the illness of
his son. Respondent likewise admitted
that, due to inadvertence, he forgot to file his application for leave of
absence for 13 August 2001. Respondent attached to the letter his
applications for leave of absence. Respondent further stated that on 24 August 2001, he sent his wife to
the office to inform the clerk of court of the reason for his absence. We agree
with OCA that there was substantial compliance by the belated filing of the
applications for leave of absence. However, under the Civil Service rules,2
an employee should submit in advance, whenever possible, an application for
vacation leave of absence for action by the proper chief of agency prior to the
effective date of such leave.3
On the other hand, an employee should file an application for sick leave of
absence immediately upon his return from such leave.
On the charge of drunkenness, respondent appeared at the Palace
of Justice reeking of liquor. He went to the office without any word or
without even talking to the clerk of court who is his superior. Before this, respondent displayed himself at
the main door of the Palace of Justice
doing nothing. Even if he was on leave of absence, respondent remained an
employee of the court duty bound to observe proper decorum especially within
court premises.
Court employees bear the burden of observing exacting standards
of ethics and morality. This is the
price one pays for the honor of working in the judiciary. Those who are part of the machinery
dispensing justice, from the lowliest clerk to the presiding judge, must
conduct themselves with utmost decorum and propriety to maintain the publics faith
and respect for the judiciary. Improper
behavior, particularly during office hours, exhibits not only a paucity of
professionalism at the workplace but also a great disrespect to the court
itself. Such demeanor is a failure of circumspection demanded of every public
official and employee.4
It is of no moment whether respondent was on leave when he went to the Palace
of Justice. For his improper behavior, respondent is
guilty of simple misconduct.
Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service,5
the penalty for simple misconduct for a first offender is suspension for one
month and one day to six months.6 However, since respondent has tendered his
resignation effective 19 March 2003
and the Court in its En Banc
Resolution of 14 October 2003
approved respondents resignation, his suspension is no longer possible. Thus,
in lieu of suspension, a fine of P5,000 is in order.
WHEREFORE, we find
respondent Michael A. Latiza guilty of simple misconduct and fine him Five
Thousand Pesos (P5,000). This
amount may be deducted from whatever benefits respondent is still entitled
after his voluntary resignation.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.