March 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > March 2007 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-03-1744 and A.M. No. P-03-1745 : March 20, 2007] JUDGE FE ALBANO MADRID V. ANTONIO T. QUEBRAL, CASH CLERK II, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, SANTIAGO CITY, ISABELA<BR><BR>[A.M. NO. P-03-1745]<BR><BR>ANTONIO T. QUEBRAL V. ANGELINA C. RILLORTA, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, CLERK OF COURT, AND MINERVA B. ALVAREZ, CLERK IV, BOTH OF THE RTC, BRANCH 21, SANTIAGO CITY, ISABELA :
[A.M. No. P-03-1744 and A.M. No. P-03-1745 : March 20, 2007]
JUDGE FE ALBANO MADRID V. ANTONIO T. QUEBRAL, CASH CLERK II, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 21, SANTIAGO CITY, ISABELA<BR><BR>[A.M. NO. P-03-1745]<BR><BR>ANTONIO T. QUEBRAL V. ANGELINA C. RILLORTA, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, CLERK OF COURT, AND MINERVA B. ALVAREZ, CLERK IV, BOTH OF THE RTC, BRANCH 21, SANTIAGO CITY, ISABELA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 20, 2007.
A.M. No. P-03-1744 - (JUDGE FE ALBANO MADRID v. ANTONIO T. QUEBRAL, Cash Clerk II, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Santiago City, Isabela) and
A.M. No. P-03-1745 - (ANTONIO T. QUEBRAL v. ANGELINA C. RILLORTA, Officer-In-Charge, Clerk of Court, and Minerva B. Alvarez, Clerk IV, both of the RTC, Branch 21, Santiago City, Isabela)
In the Decision dated October 7, 2003, Minerva B. Alvarez was dismissed from the service for dishonesty and use of a falsified document, while Angelina C. Rillorta was suspended for three months without pay for simple neglect of duty. In the same Decision, Antonio T. Quebral was dismissed from the service. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
In her Motion dated October 23, 2003, respondent Alvarez alleged that the finding of "dishonesty and falsification" against her is not supported by the law and the evidence on record. She points out that the Court found her culpable because she was "honest enough to admit in her Comment dated March 6, 2002 that the Certification of Personnel Management Course with forty (40) training hours was not actually hers." She averred that the Court failed to consider the following in finding her so guilty: Quebral was the one who falsified the certificate in order to facilitate her promotion to Clerk IV so that he could, in turn, get her position (Clerk II); Quebral went to her residence three times to convince her to submit the certification to facilitate her promotion; out of pity for Quebral (whose wife was then suffering from cancer), she declared "Bahala ka na nga"; it was Quebral who "borrowed" the certificate from Mrs. Jovita A. Blanza and submitted it to the Court; she was not aware that Quebral was doing anything illegal for and on her behalf; and she did not realize that by letting Quebral use her name in the certification, she would suffer the penalty of dismissal from the service. Respondent Alvarez begs the Court for compassion and leniency, since no aggravating circumstance can be taken against her. She implores the Court to reconsider its Decision and "apply the mitigating circumstances of good faith and length of service."
On the other hand, respondent Rillorta prays that the penalty imposed against her be reconsidered and reduced to a mere "reprimand, or to a suspension of not less than thirty (30) days or to pay a minimal fine." She insists that there was no intention on her part to defraud the government or the Court, and did not know that the practice is irregular or illegal. She thought that it was professional courtesy and accommodation from one government employee to another because she was also given clearances and certifications from other government employees free of charge. She assures the Court that there has not been a repetition of the mistake, and implores that her good faith be considered in her favor.
In a Letter dated February 2, 2004, Executive Judge Fe Albano Madrid informed the Court that respondent Rillorta had already complied with her three months' suspension and reported back to work on January 20, 2004, three months from October 16, 2003 (the date she received the Decision).
The Motions are denied for lack of merit.
Respondent Alvarez cannot claim that she was an unwilling participant in the falsification of the certificate. The records show that she was appointed as Cash Clerk II on February 1, 1995, while the Personnel Management Course she purportedly attended (and which made possible her promotion to Clerk IV on July 14, 1998) was held on April 26-30, 1993. From the time she was promoted in 1998 up to the time Quebral filed the complaint on June 26, 2000, no attempt was made to inform the Court about the falsification.
Respondent Rillorta's allegations are, likewise, bereft of merit. As the Court declared in the October 7, 2003 Decision:
A.M. No. P-03-1744 - (JUDGE FE ALBANO MADRID v. ANTONIO T. QUEBRAL, Cash Clerk II, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Santiago City, Isabela) and
A.M. No. P-03-1745 - (ANTONIO T. QUEBRAL v. ANGELINA C. RILLORTA, Officer-In-Charge, Clerk of Court, and Minerva B. Alvarez, Clerk IV, both of the RTC, Branch 21, Santiago City, Isabela)
In the Decision dated October 7, 2003, Minerva B. Alvarez was dismissed from the service for dishonesty and use of a falsified document, while Angelina C. Rillorta was suspended for three months without pay for simple neglect of duty. In the same Decision, Antonio T. Quebral was dismissed from the service. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, respondent Antonio T. Quebral, Cash Clerk II, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Santiago City, Isabela, is found GUILTY of dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, habitual absenteeism, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and is DISMISSED from the service effective immediately, with FORFEITURE of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or service of the government including government-owned and controlled corporations.Before the Court are two Motions for Reconsideration filed by respondents Alvarez and Rillorta.
Respondent Angelina C. Rillorta, Officer-In-Charge, RTC, Br. 21, Santiago City, Isabela, is GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and is SUSPENDED for three (3) months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense will warrant a more severe penalty.
Respondent Minerva B. Alvarez, Clerk IV, RTC, Branch 21. Santiago City, Isabela, is found GUILTY of dishonesty and use of falsified document, and is DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations and financial institutions.
SO ORDERED.
In her Motion dated October 23, 2003, respondent Alvarez alleged that the finding of "dishonesty and falsification" against her is not supported by the law and the evidence on record. She points out that the Court found her culpable because she was "honest enough to admit in her Comment dated March 6, 2002 that the Certification of Personnel Management Course with forty (40) training hours was not actually hers." She averred that the Court failed to consider the following in finding her so guilty: Quebral was the one who falsified the certificate in order to facilitate her promotion to Clerk IV so that he could, in turn, get her position (Clerk II); Quebral went to her residence three times to convince her to submit the certification to facilitate her promotion; out of pity for Quebral (whose wife was then suffering from cancer), she declared "Bahala ka na nga"; it was Quebral who "borrowed" the certificate from Mrs. Jovita A. Blanza and submitted it to the Court; she was not aware that Quebral was doing anything illegal for and on her behalf; and she did not realize that by letting Quebral use her name in the certification, she would suffer the penalty of dismissal from the service. Respondent Alvarez begs the Court for compassion and leniency, since no aggravating circumstance can be taken against her. She implores the Court to reconsider its Decision and "apply the mitigating circumstances of good faith and length of service."
On the other hand, respondent Rillorta prays that the penalty imposed against her be reconsidered and reduced to a mere "reprimand, or to a suspension of not less than thirty (30) days or to pay a minimal fine." She insists that there was no intention on her part to defraud the government or the Court, and did not know that the practice is irregular or illegal. She thought that it was professional courtesy and accommodation from one government employee to another because she was also given clearances and certifications from other government employees free of charge. She assures the Court that there has not been a repetition of the mistake, and implores that her good faith be considered in her favor.
In a Letter dated February 2, 2004, Executive Judge Fe Albano Madrid informed the Court that respondent Rillorta had already complied with her three months' suspension and reported back to work on January 20, 2004, three months from October 16, 2003 (the date she received the Decision).
The Motions are denied for lack of merit.
Respondent Alvarez cannot claim that she was an unwilling participant in the falsification of the certificate. The records show that she was appointed as Cash Clerk II on February 1, 1995, while the Personnel Management Course she purportedly attended (and which made possible her promotion to Clerk IV on July 14, 1998) was held on April 26-30, 1993. From the time she was promoted in 1998 up to the time Quebral filed the complaint on June 26, 2000, no attempt was made to inform the Court about the falsification.
Respondent Rillorta's allegations are, likewise, bereft of merit. As the Court declared in the October 7, 2003 Decision:
The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Rep. Act No. 6713) enunciates the state's policy of promoting high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. And no other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an employee than in the judiciary [Rule IV, Section 52-B(1)]. We have repeatedly emphasized that the conduct of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them be free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. The Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary [Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, 435 Phil. 1 (2002)].The Court hereby resolves to DENY the Motions for Reconsideration filed by Angelina C. Rillorta and Minerva B. Alvarez.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
