Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > July 2010 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-09-2591 (Formerly A.M. No. 08-12-351-MTCC) : July 20, 2010] RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF MS. MA. GRACIA CECILIA GIONSON, CLERK III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, DAVAO CITY :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JULY 20, 2010, which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. P-09-2591 - (Formerly A.M. No. 08-12-351-MTCC) - RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF MS. MA. GRACIA CECILIA GIONSON, CLERK III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, DAVAO CITY


Before us is the letter dated July 17, 2008 of Hon. Daydews D. Villamor, Executive Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Davao City, recommending that Ms. Ma. Gracia Cecilia Gionson (Clerk III, Office of the Clerk of Court, MTCC, Davao City) be dropped from the rolls. The recommendation was made after Ms. Gionson obtained unsatisfactory performance ratings for four (4) consecutive semesters or within the performance evaluation periods of July-December 2006, January-June 2007, July-December 2007, and January-June 2008.

The records show that for the first two (2) unsatisfactory performance ratings, Ms. Gionson was issued memoranda, dated August 9, 2007 and November 13, 2007, by her immediate superior - Atty. Maria Fe O. Maloloy-on. The first memorandum called Ms. Gionson's attention to her unsatisfactory performance. The second memorandum required Ms. Gionson to explain her unsatisfactory performance and behavioral attitude.

In a letter-reply, Ms. Gionson apologized and asked to be given another chance, with the promise to improve her performance.

In the following semester, Ms. Gionson was again given another unsatisfactory performance rating. In a memorandum dated May 16, 2008, Atty. Maloloy-on again called her attention and required her to explain why she should not be dropped from the rolls. In a letter-reply, Ms. Gionson explained that she had done her best to be a good employee and that she could only wait for the final decision of the Court.

Finally, on the January-June 2008 performance evaluation period, Ms. Gionson received another unsatisfactory performance rating. The administrative matter was then referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

In its Report dated October 22, 2008, the OCA stated:

Section 2(2.2) (a & b), Rule XII of the Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Personnel Action (CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, series of 1998) provides, that an official or employee who is given two (2) consecutive "Unsatisfactory" ratings or who for one evaluation period is rated "Poor" in performance may be dropped from the rolls after due notice.

Section 2(2.6) of the same rule further provides that dropping from the rolls for unsatisfactory or poor performance is non-disciplinary in nature and shall not result in the forfeiture of any benefits on the part of the official or employee nor in disqualifying him from re-employment in the government.

xxx The documentary requirements before one can be dropped from the rolls for obtaining unsatisfactory performance ratings are set forth under Section 2(2.2) (a) of the aforesaid rule.

The Omnibus Rules require the following:

1. Notice in writing
   
   
   1.  informing the officer or employee concerned of his unsatisfactory performance for a semester;
      
      
   2.  warning that a succeeding unsatisfactory performance shall warrant her separation from the service;
      
      
   3. containing sufficient information which shall enable the employee to prepare an explanation.
      
   
   
2. Notice to be given not later than 30 days from the end of the semester.
   

OCA Circular No. 172-2003 entitled "Notice Requirement in the giving of Unsatisfactory and Poor Performance Rating" essentially contains the same requirements with the additional provision that the notice shall be issued by the supervisor/rater.

Records reveal that the documentary requirements have been met. The written Notices were issued by Atty. Maioloy-on, Clerk of Court IV, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Office of the Clerk of Court, Davao City the rater of Ms. Gionson. The notices given contained sufficient information that Ms. Gionson obtained unsatisfactory performance rating for the four (4) consecutive semesters with reminders that she should improve her performance and conduct herself properly as public servant. On even dates[,] August 9, 2007, November 12, 2007, January 21, 2008, April 24, 2008, May 16, 2008 and May 23, 2008, notices were given to Ms. Gionson and she was also given time to explain her side and even reminded with the provision from the Manual for Clerks of Court that "An official or employee who is given two (2) consecutive unsatisfactory or poor ratings may be dropped from the rolls after due notice, x x x of which she replied to the Memorandum issued on November 13, 2007 and May 19, 2008 respectively.

Despite several memoranda and reminders that Ms. Gionson may be dropped from the rolls in view of her unsatisfactory performance, she is still not performing well.

The OCA recommended that Ms. Gionson be dropped from the rolls for obtaining unsatisfactory ratings for four (4) consecutive semesters and that her position be declared vacant. The OCA stated that because Ms. Gionson's separation from service is not disciplinary in nature, it should not result in the forfeiture of any benefits she may be entitled to or qualified for under existing laws; neither should it disqualify her from re-employment in the government service.

On February 24, 2009 and pending resolution of this administrative matter, Judge Villamor sent us two letters of reconsideration written by Ms. Gionson and by Atty. Maloloy-on, requesting that Ms. Gionson be given another chance. On one hand, Ms. Gionson pointed out her satisfactory performance rating for the period of July-December 2008. On the other hand, Atty. Maloloy-on expressed that Ms. Gionson has somehow improve[d] on her behavioral attitude and in the performance of her function the last semester of 2008.^[1]


We agree with the OCA as its recommendations are in accord with the facts of the case and the applicable law. The records show that as early as January-June 2007, Ms. Gionson should have been already dropped from the rolls. We can only infer that her supervisor's inaction then was due to humanitarian reasons, in response to the plea of Ms. Gionson to be given another chance. The records also show that before working in her present office, she had worked with several offices where her inadequate work performance had also been noted. In her letter-reply dated November 13, 2007, Ms. Gionson admitted that she found it hard to focus on her work because she could not understand it.

In Re: Dropping from the Rolls of Ms. Paciencia E. Ajanab, Court Stenographer I, MCTC, Maluso, Basilan, we emphasized that court personnel should be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency, and must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence.^[2] Thus, to keep an employee found to be incompetent and grossly inefficient in the performance of her work would be a great disservice to the public.^[3]

In considering Ms. Gionson's case, particularly the possibility of giving her another chance to improve her performance and work attitude, we take into account, more than anything else, our own heavy responsibilities in the dispensation of justice. We cannot give the excuse that we failed in our primary task because we accommodated the plea for leniency of an incompetent employee. We consider, too, that it is only now that the present administrative matter had been indorsed to us - i.e., after Ms. Gionson had received four (4) unsatisfactory performance ratings for four (4) consecutive performance evaluation periods. This previous inaction indicates to us and leads us to conclude that Ms. Gionson had previously been given chances to improve her work and had failed; hence, her superiors had to act.

Ultimately and despite our deepest urge to be lenient, we have to face up to the need to have court employees who not only know their work but are able to perform the work competently, diligently and efficiently. We cannot close our eyes to the basic principle that public office is a public trust.^[4] All public officers are accountable to the people at all times and their duties and responsibilities must be strictly performed.^[5] Thus, we will not be effectively performing our own duties if we allow Ms. Gionson's employment to continue, by relying on the hope that her work performance would somehow improve in the future.

We close with a reiteration of an aspect of the case that the OCA had mentioned - we are not imposing a penalty by dropping a court employee from our roll Our action will not stop Ms. Gionson from undertaking self- improvement measures on her own, after which she can again seek to be in

the public service at the levels that her competence and work attitude would then allow.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby APPROVE the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator that Ma. Gracia Cecilia Gionson, Clerk III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Office of the Clerk of Court, Davao City, be DROPPED FROM THE ROLLS and her position be declared VACANT. This separation from the service is non- disciplinary and shall not result in the forfeiture of any benefits she may be entitled to or may qualify for under existing laws; neither will this disqualify her from re-employment In the government service."

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Letter of Atty. Maria Fe O. Maloloy-on dated February 24, 2009, addressed to Hon. Daydews D. Villamor, Executive Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Davao City.
     
^[2] A.M. No. 08-12-357-MCTC, February 10,2009.
     
^[3] Ibid.
     
^[4] Mercado v. Manalo, A.M. No. P-02-1541, February 6, 2002, 376 SCRA 168, 170.
    
^[5] Ibid.