ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 142444. July 4, 2000]

ARTUZ vs. CA, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 4 2000.

G.R. No. 142444 (Artuz vs. Court of Appeals and Civil Service Commission.)

Before us is a petition for certiorari from the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals affirming in toto the decision of the Civil Service Commission finding the petitioner guilty of Dishonesty and Falsification of Public Documents and imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties.

In July and August 1991 the petitioner filed her DTR which indicate that she did not incur any absences and collected salaries therefor. On January 2, 1992 a letter complaint was filed by a private complainant with the Office of Legal Affairs of the DOH that according to the office logbook of the Regional Health Office (RHO No. 6) of Iloilo City the petitioner incurred 8 days absence in July 1991 and 9 days absence in August 1991. The petitioner in answer to the accusation stated that the questioned DTR's are based on her punch card which she could not produce in evidence because she submitted them to the personnel department. The petitioner submitted in evidence special orders from her superiors to show that on some days she was out on official business. She explained that she did not register in the logbook on some days because she punched her card and that the logbook is not reliable and its use is not authorized by the DOH. Her immediate superior who signed her DTR stated that she relied on the certification the petitioner made on the DTR's.

It was found by the Civil Service Commission that the special orders submitted by the petitioner do not cover the discrepancies between the office logbook and the questioned DTR's and that their dates do not coincide. The DOH Policy Procedure Manual presented in evidence showed that the employees of the regional offices of the DOH are under instruction to register in the logbook upon arrival and departure, morning and afternoon. The petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the procedure in their office as it was found that she registered in the logbook prior to and subsequent to the months in question here. The Civil Service Commission also noted that the petitioner's punch card which could have disproved the accusation against the petitioner were not presented in evidence. We note that the impossibility of its presentation before the Commission was not shown.

The petition is dismissed, no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the respondent court.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE