March 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > March 2007 Resolutions >
[OCA IPI No. 07-2480-P : March 05, 2007] JUDGE MONO LISA V. TIONGSON-TABORA V. OLYMPIA ELENA DACANAY, LEGAL RESEARCHER, RTC, BRANCH 26, SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION :
[OCA IPI No. 07-2480-P : March 05, 2007]
JUDGE MONO LISA V. TIONGSON-TABORA V. OLYMPIA ELENA DACANAY, LEGAL RESEARCHER, RTC, BRANCH 26, SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 5 March 2007
OCA IPI No. 07-2480-P (Judge Mono Lisa V. Tiongson-Tabora v. Olympia Elena Dacanay, Legal Researcher, RTC, Branch 26, San Fernando, La Union)
For consideration is the Report dated 12 January 2007 on the administrative matter submitted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
In a letter-complaint dated 8 September 2006, complainant Judge Mona Lisa V. Tiongson-Tabora (complainant) charged respondent Olympia Elena Dacanay with Dishonesty.
Complainant is the Presiding Judge while respondent is the legal researcher of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, San Fernando, La Union. Respondent was designated for a time as the Officer-in Charge (OIC) Branch Clerk of Court. This designation, however, was revoked by complainant effective 1 August 2006 due to respondent's dishonest and deceitful acts, in a Memorandum addressed to respondent, annexed to the letter-complaint.
In said memorandum, complainant judge averred that respondent had secured an indorsement from the pairing judge, Judge Antonio Carbonell, for the appointment of her friend, Rosmin Reyes, as Court Interpreter on the false representation that complainant judge requested the indorsement. Moreover, respondent had been absent without leave since 5 September 2006. Complainant judge also alleged that respondent had maintained a belligerent attitude towards her. Further, respondent had her daily time record for July 2006 signed by the pairing judge although complainant judge had already reported for work on 18 July 2006.
In her Comment dated 6 October 2006, respondent explains that Judge Carbonell informed her that in the absence of the Presiding Judge, the pairing judge has authority to endorse applicants. Thus, when Reyes applied for the position of Court Interpreter, respondent introduced her to Judge Carbonnel. Respondent denies that she ever used the name of complainant judge in introducing Reyes to Judge Carbonell. Moreover, respondent clarifies that Reyes was endorsed to the available position to prevent any disruption in the judicial work of Branch 26; and that the indorsement was made following the information that complainant judge had filed an indefinite leave of absence in order to undergo medical treatment.
Respondent denies ever having taken advantage of her position. In truth, it was her intention to maintain the quality of work in Branch 26; thus, the filling up of the vacancy.
Respondent also maintains that she never maintained a belligerent attitude towards complainant judge. She avers that she had attempted several times to talk to complainant but the latter scolded and shouted at her. She deemed it best to let the rage of complainant judge pass.
Respondent claims that neither was she belligerent when she had her daily time record for July 2006 signed by Judge Carbonell on 3 August 2006. She explains that complainant judge was absent on said date and she needed to expedite her claim for her representation and transportation allowance. At any rate, respondent prepared another set of her July 2006 DTRs with corresponding application for leave for complainant judge to sign. Nonetheless, complainant judge refused to sign both her July 2006 and August 2006 DTRs.
Anent her absence without leave, respondent claims that she was on sick leave from 5 to 8 September 2006 due to a severe asthma attack. Her asthma was triggered by her exposure to dust in the course of segregating all the terminated exhibits in the storeroom, in compliance with the directives of complainant judge.
Per verification with the Personnel Division of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS), OCA, the position of Court Interpreter in Branch 26 became vacant on 9 December 2005. On the other hand, complainant judge was appointed to Branch 26 on 18 January 2006.
The OCA finds that complainant judge may have been by-passed when Reyes was endorsed for the position in Branch 26 without her approval. Complainant judge should have been accorded respect by notifying her of the plan to fill up the vacancy even though she was on an indefinite leave of absence.
However, there is no proof that respondent had lobbied for Reyes' indorsement or that she had planned the appointment during the absence of complainant judge. In addition, Judge Carbonell was authorized to make the indorsement although he withdrew it later on. Notwithstanding, the OCA deems it proper that respondent be censured for this unfortunate incident.
Regarding respondent's absences, per the Leave Divison of OCA, she filed an application for sick leave from 5 to 8 September 2006 but it was disapproved by complainant judge. As of 30 September 2006, respondent approximately had 76 days of vacation leave credits days of sick leave credits. But respondent's applications for leave for the months of July (12 days), August (2 days), September (4 days) of 2006, were all disapproved by complainant judge. The approval or disapproval of a personnel's application for leave rests solely on the discretion of his/ her Presiding Judge. Thus, respondent was considered absent without leave due to complainant's disapproval of her applications for leave.
The OCA recommends that the instant complaint be dismissed. However, it also recommends that respondent be admonished for failing to inform complainant judge of Reyes application for employment. The OCA further advises the parties to conduct themselves in accordance with the best interest of the service. It should not be forgotten that the interest of public service is paramount to personal convenience[1] and that any animosity between the parties must yield to the higher considerations of proper administration of justice and of public service.
Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and the facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Olympia Elena Dacanay, Legal Researcher, Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 26 is DISMISSED. Respondent Dacanay is, however, ADMONISHED for failure to inform complainant Presiding Judge Mona Lisa V. Tiongson-Tabora of Rosmin Reyes' application for employment in her court. Further, both parties are ADVISED to set aside their personal differences and conduct themselves in accordance with the best interest of public service.
OCA IPI No. 07-2480-P (Judge Mono Lisa V. Tiongson-Tabora v. Olympia Elena Dacanay, Legal Researcher, RTC, Branch 26, San Fernando, La Union)
For consideration is the Report dated 12 January 2007 on the administrative matter submitted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
In a letter-complaint dated 8 September 2006, complainant Judge Mona Lisa V. Tiongson-Tabora (complainant) charged respondent Olympia Elena Dacanay with Dishonesty.
Complainant is the Presiding Judge while respondent is the legal researcher of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, San Fernando, La Union. Respondent was designated for a time as the Officer-in Charge (OIC) Branch Clerk of Court. This designation, however, was revoked by complainant effective 1 August 2006 due to respondent's dishonest and deceitful acts, in a Memorandum addressed to respondent, annexed to the letter-complaint.
In said memorandum, complainant judge averred that respondent had secured an indorsement from the pairing judge, Judge Antonio Carbonell, for the appointment of her friend, Rosmin Reyes, as Court Interpreter on the false representation that complainant judge requested the indorsement. Moreover, respondent had been absent without leave since 5 September 2006. Complainant judge also alleged that respondent had maintained a belligerent attitude towards her. Further, respondent had her daily time record for July 2006 signed by the pairing judge although complainant judge had already reported for work on 18 July 2006.
In her Comment dated 6 October 2006, respondent explains that Judge Carbonell informed her that in the absence of the Presiding Judge, the pairing judge has authority to endorse applicants. Thus, when Reyes applied for the position of Court Interpreter, respondent introduced her to Judge Carbonnel. Respondent denies that she ever used the name of complainant judge in introducing Reyes to Judge Carbonell. Moreover, respondent clarifies that Reyes was endorsed to the available position to prevent any disruption in the judicial work of Branch 26; and that the indorsement was made following the information that complainant judge had filed an indefinite leave of absence in order to undergo medical treatment.
Respondent denies ever having taken advantage of her position. In truth, it was her intention to maintain the quality of work in Branch 26; thus, the filling up of the vacancy.
Respondent also maintains that she never maintained a belligerent attitude towards complainant judge. She avers that she had attempted several times to talk to complainant but the latter scolded and shouted at her. She deemed it best to let the rage of complainant judge pass.
Respondent claims that neither was she belligerent when she had her daily time record for July 2006 signed by Judge Carbonell on 3 August 2006. She explains that complainant judge was absent on said date and she needed to expedite her claim for her representation and transportation allowance. At any rate, respondent prepared another set of her July 2006 DTRs with corresponding application for leave for complainant judge to sign. Nonetheless, complainant judge refused to sign both her July 2006 and August 2006 DTRs.
Anent her absence without leave, respondent claims that she was on sick leave from 5 to 8 September 2006 due to a severe asthma attack. Her asthma was triggered by her exposure to dust in the course of segregating all the terminated exhibits in the storeroom, in compliance with the directives of complainant judge.
Per verification with the Personnel Division of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS), OCA, the position of Court Interpreter in Branch 26 became vacant on 9 December 2005. On the other hand, complainant judge was appointed to Branch 26 on 18 January 2006.
The OCA finds that complainant judge may have been by-passed when Reyes was endorsed for the position in Branch 26 without her approval. Complainant judge should have been accorded respect by notifying her of the plan to fill up the vacancy even though she was on an indefinite leave of absence.
However, there is no proof that respondent had lobbied for Reyes' indorsement or that she had planned the appointment during the absence of complainant judge. In addition, Judge Carbonell was authorized to make the indorsement although he withdrew it later on. Notwithstanding, the OCA deems it proper that respondent be censured for this unfortunate incident.
Regarding respondent's absences, per the Leave Divison of OCA, she filed an application for sick leave from 5 to 8 September 2006 but it was disapproved by complainant judge. As of 30 September 2006, respondent approximately had 76 days of vacation leave credits days of sick leave credits. But respondent's applications for leave for the months of July (12 days), August (2 days), September (4 days) of 2006, were all disapproved by complainant judge. The approval or disapproval of a personnel's application for leave rests solely on the discretion of his/ her Presiding Judge. Thus, respondent was considered absent without leave due to complainant's disapproval of her applications for leave.
The OCA recommends that the instant complaint be dismissed. However, it also recommends that respondent be admonished for failing to inform complainant judge of Reyes application for employment. The OCA further advises the parties to conduct themselves in accordance with the best interest of the service. It should not be forgotten that the interest of public service is paramount to personal convenience[1] and that any animosity between the parties must yield to the higher considerations of proper administration of justice and of public service.
Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and the facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Olympia Elena Dacanay, Legal Researcher, Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 26 is DISMISSED. Respondent Dacanay is, however, ADMONISHED for failure to inform complainant Presiding Judge Mona Lisa V. Tiongson-Tabora of Rosmin Reyes' application for employment in her court. Further, both parties are ADVISED to set aside their personal differences and conduct themselves in accordance with the best interest of public service.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Re: Request of Mr. Melito E. Cuadra, Process Server, RTC, Branch 100, Quezon City to the RTC, Branch 18, Tagaytay City, A.M. No. 01-12-629-RTC, 15 June 2005, 460 SCRA 115.
