| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
542 Phil. 8
THIRD DIVISION
[ A.M. NO. P-05-1960 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 05-2080-P), January 26, 2007 ]
CONCERNED LITIGANTS, COMPLAINANTS, VS. MANUEL Z. ARAYA, JR., UTILITY WORKER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, OZAMIZ CITY, RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before us is a letter[1] dated June 16, 2003 of Concerned Litigants (complainants) charging Manuel Z. Araya, Jr. (respondent), Utility Worker, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Ozamiz City, with Falsification of Daily Time Record (DTR), Frequent Unauthorized Absences or Tardiness and Loafing.
Complainants allege that respondent arrives in his post at 10:00 in the morning and goes home at 11:30 a.m. In the afternoon, he reports for work at 3:00 and goes home at 4:30. Sometimes he does not report at all yet does not file any leave of absence nor enters his time in the logbook. He could not be seen in his post the whole day. The act of respondent has been going on for a long time that he feels untouchable. Because of his habitual absence, he can no longer perform his regular job. The chamber, staff office, and courtroom are very dirty and the records are not properly arranged and there are records that need stitching. It is unfair to those employees who report to work regularly and on time when respondent is seldom seen in office but receives his salary regularly like any of his co-employees. He stayed most of the time at his house watching television even during office hours. Complainants are very much concerned and sympathized with the officemates of respondent who sometimes do his job in order not to hamper the flow of work in the office.
On August 8, 2003, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) sent a First Indorsement[2] to respondent, Clerk of Court Renato L. Zapatos (Zapatos), and Hon. Rio Concepcion Achas (Judge Achas), Presiding Judge, MTCC, Branch 2, Ozamiz City, referring the letter of complainants for their respective comments.
In his letter-comment[3] dated August 20, 2003, respondent avers that since his first day in office as utility man, he adhered to the prescribed office hours and never did he neglect to dutifully perform his basic tasks of maintaining the cleanliness, orderliness and tidiness of the staff's office, the courtroom, the judge's chamber and the comfort room; that with the nature of his job, it is impractical, improper, if not unethical, to do such tasks during office hours with the presence of office personnel or court users; and that to do his duties effectively and efficiently, he has to do those tasks at a very early morning hours or sometimes after the close of office hours for all its practicality. He points out that the allegation that he reports for work as late as 10:30 and 3:30 and leaves his post as early as 11:30 and 4:30 is purely exaggeration. After cleaning the office in the morning, respondent admits that he goes home and prepares for office but not until any one of the office staff arrives and only then that he leaves the office. After he changes to his office uniform, he immediately goes back in the office although as late as 9:00 or 9:30 already but with all the confidence that he has already done his tasks for that particular day. Respondent denied that he neglected to do his works and it is his officemates who do the same for him is an exaggeration because when he is on leave, naturally his officemates would have to do it themselves, the things his officemates would have him do otherwise, if present. That as a matter of command responsibility, his superiors are the persons having control and direct supervision over his work. As to the allegation that his act is tantamount to falsification of DTRs, he contends that it could not be possible since it is the clerk of court and the presiding judge who approve the DTR and the application for leave; and that he works hard to support his family and dismisses the imputation that he is untouchable the same being incredulous, senseless and idiotic.
In his letter-comment[4] dated September 9, 2003, Zapatos states that one of his duties is to monitor the attendance and whereabouts of personnel under his supervision; and that it is true that government employees are supposed to be in the office eight hours a day. He avers that there are unavoidable occasions when an employee, for urgent reason, is allowed to leave during office hours; that the concerned litigants may have failed to consider the nature of the job of a utility worker whose duties, among others, require him often to be out of the office to mail office communications, court orders and the like, in the post office; that aside from stitching records of cases, respondent's job includes the maintenance of the cleanliness of the office premises which he has to do before office hours so as not to disturb the other employees; and that this could be the reason probably why sometimes respondent cannot be back in the office on time at exactly 8:00 o'clock in the morning.
As to the report regarding respondent's practice of staying at his house most of the time even during office hours watching television, Zapatos asserts that he has difficulty confirming the same since he has not personally seen respondent doing it. He claims that respondent files his leave application as office record will show, quite contrary to the allegations in said letter.
Zapatos admitted though that respondent is not exactly a model employee and in fact, has a performance rating of only “Satisfactory”. Zapatos declares that if respondent may have committed certain minor infractions of office policies or sometimes remiss in his duties in the past, respondent have shown some improvements in his performance; and that recent evaluation of his other job functions are generally satisfactory.
In his letter-comment dated September 11, 2003,[5] Judge Achas avers that he conducted an investigation on the alleged complaint against respondent. Upon verification of the court's daily time logbook he found that the same shows that respondent reflects his absence or undertime in it. Respondent's application for leave of absence is intact. The cleanliness of the office is satisfactory. Judge Achas states that he granted respondent a flexi-time pursuant to the memorandum circular issued by the Supreme Court because respondent has to clean and arrange the tables, chairs and other court equipments during non-office or working hours in order to forestall disruption of work; that respondent does the cleaning starting at 5:30 until 7:30 in the morning and has to stay until 7:00 in the evening to put off the lights and throw garbage for the day. Thus, he gave respondent a special time to report to office, i.e., 9:15 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. and 2:15 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Judge Achas further states that respondent is out of office when he is tasked to do some mailings and at the same time the retrieval of mails from the postal office.
On the allegation that respondent is seen at home viewing television during working hours, Judge Achas avers that he failed to ascertain that respondent is doing the same and that the complaint against respondent has no legal basis to ripen for any remedial and/or administrative sanction.
In the Agenda Report[6] dated December 15, 2004, the OCA submitted its evaluation and recommendation, to wit:
In his letter dated March 11, 2005,[9] Judge Achas explains that he did not and will never abet anyone's violation of the Civil Service Rules, Memorandum Circulars and existing laws. He stressed that his Comment dated September 9, 2003 was based on the logbook and other pertinent documents on hand plus his constant monitoring not only on respondent but also on the other rank and file employees in his sala. He challenges the complainants to come out with specific facts and data including the dates so that the same could be compared with the record files to ascertain whether he and his clerk of court side and/or abet the respondent. He avers that they will not hesitate to make the necessary complaint and/or report against any erring rank and file employees and similarly, he is open for reports and/or complaints against him.
In his letter dated March 22, 2005,[10] Zapatos explains that it was never his intention to abet, nor will he abet, respondent's alleged violations, nor of any of the personnel under his supervision for that matter. He never lacked exerting efforts of constantly reminding respondent of his duties and responsibilities as an employee and as utility worker in particular and of whatever misdemeanors respondent may have committed although he admitted that the reminders were mostly done orally and in private and in a friendly or brotherly approach, not through verbal scoldings or written memoranda. He further explains that record will show that for several rating periods in the past respondent was given a rating of “Satisfactory” and in the latest performance evaluation period covering the months of July to December 2004, respondent was given an “Unsatisfactory” rating. That he feels and believes that it would be unfair to hold him administratively liable for abetting respondent's alleged violations.
In its Resolution of October 10, 2005,[11] the Court referred the comments to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
In its Compliance[12] dated July 27, 2006, the OCA reiterates its findings and recommendation as contained in the Agenda Report of December 15, 2004, there being no sufficient and weighty justification nor supplemental explanation proffered by respondent to warrant dismissal of the complaint against him.
We adopt the findings of the OCA except as to the recommended action against Judge Achas and Zapatos.
On falsification of daily time record.
It is noted that per Judge Achas’s admission, respondent reports for work at 9:15-11:15 a.m. and 2:15-7:00 p.m. based on the flexi-time arrangement. However, the said arrangement was not faithfully reflected in respondent's DTR, which is an official document. Based on the above flexi-time arrangement, respondent reports for work for only six hours and forty-five minutes which is short of the required eight hours of work mandated by law. Thus, respondent incurred tardiness of one hour and fifteen minutes a day or six hours and fifteen minutes a week, which is very detrimental to the government service.
It must be stressed that all judicial employees must devote their official time to government service.[13] They must exercise at all times a high degree of professionalism and responsibility, as service in the judiciary is not only a duty; it is a mission. Moreover, the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the last and lowest of its employees.[14]
Public service requires integrity and discipline. For this reason, public servants must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and dedication to duty.[15] By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, government employees must faithfully adhere to, hold sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust; that all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.[16]
Respondent explained that to do his duties effectively and efficiently, he has to do those tasks at a very early morning hours or sometimes after the close of office hours.[17] This explanation cannot exculpate him from liability. At most, it can serve as a mitigating circumstance. Under the Civil Service Rules, off-setting of tardiness or absences by working for an equivalent number of minutes or hours by which an officer or employer has been tardy or absent, beyond the regular or approved working hours of the employees concerned, is not allowed.[18]
On frequent unauthorized absences or tardiness or loafing.
Records reveal that respondent's alleged absences/tardiness and loafing while on duty during regular office hours were with the knowledge and consent not only of the presiding judge but also of the branch clerk of court. Thus, the OCA finds both the presiding judge and the branch clerk of court responsible for tolerating the acts of respondent. We agree.
Too much leniency on the part of judges is frowned upon. We held in Lacurom v. Magbanua,[19] citing the case of Buenaventura v. Benedicto,[20] to wit:
As observed by the OCA, Judge Achas and Zapatos are liable for circumventing the Civil Service Rules without proper authority and for tolerating respondent to commit such violation.
The constant reminders of Zapatos to respondent done orally, in private and friendly or brotherly approach, prove futile as shown by the fact that respondent subsequently obtained an “Unsatisfactory” rating for the period covering July to December 2004. It bears stressing that a court employee need not be constantly reminded of his duties and responsibilities. It behooves upon the employee to do his job with utmost diligence without waiting for reminders. Zapatos should have issued a memorandum calling respondent's attention and if the same is not heeded, for him to report respondent's infractions to Judge Achas and the OCA for appropriate action. This Zapatos failed to do.
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 2-99 provides that absenteeism and tardiness even if such are not habitual or frequent shall be dealt with severely, and any falsification of DTRs to cover up for such absenteeism or tardiness shall constitute gross dishonesty or serious misconduct.[22] Dishonesty, being in the nature of grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for
reemployment in government service.[23] Under the Civil Service law,[24] respondent, whose DTR is evidently unrepresentative of the truth, should be punished with dismissal, although it is his first offense.
While this Court is duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline its errant employees and to weed out those who are undesirable, this Court also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy.[25] For when an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government.[26]
Considering that respondent utility worker is a first time offender and considering further that his reliance in good faith that the flexi-time arrangement is legal, and his being out of the office during office hours is brought about by the flexi-time erroneously allowed by Judge Achas who presumably knows the law coupled with the fact that he did his tasks before and after office hours so as not to disturb his co-employees, serve to mitigate his liability.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds Manuel Z. Araya, Jr. guilty of dishonesty in not faithfully reflecting the exact time of his arrival and departure in his daily time record and is REPRIMANDED with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Judge Rio Concepcion Achas and Clerk of Court III Renato L. Zapatos are REPRIMANDED for violating the Civil Service Rules without authority from the Court with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, (Chairperson), Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 7.
[2] Id. at 11-13.
[3] Id. at 25-26.
[4] Id. at 8.
[5] Id. at 9-10.
[6] Id. at 1-6.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 15.
[9] Id. at 16.
[10] Id. at 19.
[11] Id. at 32.
[12] Id. at 33-41.
[13] Re: Findings of Irregularity on the Bundy Cards of Personnel of the Regional Trial Court Branch 26 and Municipal Trial Court, Medina, Misamis Oriental, A.M. No. 04-11-671-RTC, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 1, 12.
[14] Id.
[15] Court Personnel of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court-San Carlos City v. Llamas, A.M No. P-04-1925, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 60, 62 citing Mirano v. Saavedra, 225 SCRA 77, 85.
[16] Id.
[17] Rollo, page 25.
[18] Section 9, Rule XVII, CSC Resolution No. 91-1631, Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Rules, dated December 27, 1991.
[19] 443 Phil. 711, 720-721 (2003).
[20] 148 Phil. 63, 71 (1971).
[21] Pimentel v. De Leoz, 448 Phil. 223, 243 (2003).
[22] Office of the Court Administrator v. Breta, A.M. No. P-05-2023, March 6, 2006, 484 SCRA 114, 116-117.
[23] Id.
[24] Section 23, Rule XIV.
[26] Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, G.R. No. 155732, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 593, 608.
Complainants allege that respondent arrives in his post at 10:00 in the morning and goes home at 11:30 a.m. In the afternoon, he reports for work at 3:00 and goes home at 4:30. Sometimes he does not report at all yet does not file any leave of absence nor enters his time in the logbook. He could not be seen in his post the whole day. The act of respondent has been going on for a long time that he feels untouchable. Because of his habitual absence, he can no longer perform his regular job. The chamber, staff office, and courtroom are very dirty and the records are not properly arranged and there are records that need stitching. It is unfair to those employees who report to work regularly and on time when respondent is seldom seen in office but receives his salary regularly like any of his co-employees. He stayed most of the time at his house watching television even during office hours. Complainants are very much concerned and sympathized with the officemates of respondent who sometimes do his job in order not to hamper the flow of work in the office.
On August 8, 2003, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) sent a First Indorsement[2] to respondent, Clerk of Court Renato L. Zapatos (Zapatos), and Hon. Rio Concepcion Achas (Judge Achas), Presiding Judge, MTCC, Branch 2, Ozamiz City, referring the letter of complainants for their respective comments.
In his letter-comment[3] dated August 20, 2003, respondent avers that since his first day in office as utility man, he adhered to the prescribed office hours and never did he neglect to dutifully perform his basic tasks of maintaining the cleanliness, orderliness and tidiness of the staff's office, the courtroom, the judge's chamber and the comfort room; that with the nature of his job, it is impractical, improper, if not unethical, to do such tasks during office hours with the presence of office personnel or court users; and that to do his duties effectively and efficiently, he has to do those tasks at a very early morning hours or sometimes after the close of office hours for all its practicality. He points out that the allegation that he reports for work as late as 10:30 and 3:30 and leaves his post as early as 11:30 and 4:30 is purely exaggeration. After cleaning the office in the morning, respondent admits that he goes home and prepares for office but not until any one of the office staff arrives and only then that he leaves the office. After he changes to his office uniform, he immediately goes back in the office although as late as 9:00 or 9:30 already but with all the confidence that he has already done his tasks for that particular day. Respondent denied that he neglected to do his works and it is his officemates who do the same for him is an exaggeration because when he is on leave, naturally his officemates would have to do it themselves, the things his officemates would have him do otherwise, if present. That as a matter of command responsibility, his superiors are the persons having control and direct supervision over his work. As to the allegation that his act is tantamount to falsification of DTRs, he contends that it could not be possible since it is the clerk of court and the presiding judge who approve the DTR and the application for leave; and that he works hard to support his family and dismisses the imputation that he is untouchable the same being incredulous, senseless and idiotic.
In his letter-comment[4] dated September 9, 2003, Zapatos states that one of his duties is to monitor the attendance and whereabouts of personnel under his supervision; and that it is true that government employees are supposed to be in the office eight hours a day. He avers that there are unavoidable occasions when an employee, for urgent reason, is allowed to leave during office hours; that the concerned litigants may have failed to consider the nature of the job of a utility worker whose duties, among others, require him often to be out of the office to mail office communications, court orders and the like, in the post office; that aside from stitching records of cases, respondent's job includes the maintenance of the cleanliness of the office premises which he has to do before office hours so as not to disturb the other employees; and that this could be the reason probably why sometimes respondent cannot be back in the office on time at exactly 8:00 o'clock in the morning.
As to the report regarding respondent's practice of staying at his house most of the time even during office hours watching television, Zapatos asserts that he has difficulty confirming the same since he has not personally seen respondent doing it. He claims that respondent files his leave application as office record will show, quite contrary to the allegations in said letter.
Zapatos admitted though that respondent is not exactly a model employee and in fact, has a performance rating of only “Satisfactory”. Zapatos declares that if respondent may have committed certain minor infractions of office policies or sometimes remiss in his duties in the past, respondent have shown some improvements in his performance; and that recent evaluation of his other job functions are generally satisfactory.
In his letter-comment dated September 11, 2003,[5] Judge Achas avers that he conducted an investigation on the alleged complaint against respondent. Upon verification of the court's daily time logbook he found that the same shows that respondent reflects his absence or undertime in it. Respondent's application for leave of absence is intact. The cleanliness of the office is satisfactory. Judge Achas states that he granted respondent a flexi-time pursuant to the memorandum circular issued by the Supreme Court because respondent has to clean and arrange the tables, chairs and other court equipments during non-office or working hours in order to forestall disruption of work; that respondent does the cleaning starting at 5:30 until 7:30 in the morning and has to stay until 7:00 in the evening to put off the lights and throw garbage for the day. Thus, he gave respondent a special time to report to office, i.e., 9:15 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. and 2:15 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Judge Achas further states that respondent is out of office when he is tasked to do some mailings and at the same time the retrieval of mails from the postal office.
On the allegation that respondent is seen at home viewing television during working hours, Judge Achas avers that he failed to ascertain that respondent is doing the same and that the complaint against respondent has no legal basis to ripen for any remedial and/or administrative sanction.
In the Agenda Report[6] dated December 15, 2004, the OCA submitted its evaluation and recommendation, to wit:
EVALUATION: As basis for our evaluation, we requested the Leave Division-OCA for a certified photocopies of respondent's daily time records starting January 2003 to July 2003, the anonymous complaint being dated 16 June 2003 and the dates of the alleged absences/tardiness and loafing of respondent being unspecified.In its Resolution of February 7, 2005,[8] the Court required Judge Achas and Zapatos to show cause why they should not be held administratively liable for abetting respondent's violation of the Civil Service Rules.
We find that the categorical admission of Judge Achas that he allowed respondent a flex-time schedule which is at 9:15 A.M. (arrival)/11:15 A.M. (departure) and 2:15 P.M. (arrival)/7:00 P.M. (departure), the said arrangement was not faithfully reflected in respondent's daily time record, which is an official document. Secondly, nowhere can we find any provision in the Civil Service Law wherein utility worker positions are given special time arrangements or accommodations for purposes of their working convenience. Unequivocally stated under Rule XVII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292 are the following applicable and relevant rules:From the foregoing rules, it is crystal clear that Judge Achas (although he was not the respondent in the instant case) has deviated from the prescribed guidelines. The law explicitly requires an employee to render a total of forty (40) hours a week which, if based on the practice of respondent which bore the approval of Judge Achas (9:15-11:15 and 2:15-7:00 p.m.), the said schedule glaringly fell short from the required number of working hours imposed.Rule XVIIGovernment Office Hours
SECTION 1: It shall be the duty of each head of the department or agency to require all officers and employees under him to strictly observe the prescribed office hours. “When the head of the office, in the exercise of his discretion allows government officials and employees to leave the office during office hours and not for official business, but to attend social events/functions and/or wakes, interments, the same shall be reflected in their time cards and charged to their leave credits.” (As amended by CSC MC No. 1, s. 1994 dated January 6, 1994, effective immediately)
x x x x
Section 5. Officers and employees of all departments and agencies except those covered by special laws shall render not less than eight (8) hours of work a day for five (5) days a week or a total of forty (40) hours a week, exclusive of time for lunch. As a general rule, such hours shall be from eight o'clock in the morning to twelve o'clock noon and from one o'clock to five o'clock in the afternoon on all days except Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays.
Section 6. Flexible working hours maybe allowed subject to the discretion of the head of department or agency. In no case shall the weekly working hours be reduced in the event the department or agency x x x adopts the flexi-time schedule in reporting for work.
x x x x
Section 9. Off-setting of tardiness or absences by working for an equivalent number of minutes or hours by which an officer or employee has been tardy or absent, beyond the regular or approved working hours of the employees concerned, shall not be allowed.
However, the instant case is unique on its own that it was respondent's superior who “authorized” and approved the former's working schedule. The alleged absences/tardiness and loafing of respondent while on duty during regular office hours were with the knowledge and consent of the presiding judge and branch clerk concerned.
Stated differently, it is more prudent to admonish not only the respondent but also Judge Achas and Clerk of Court Zapatos for circumventing the Civil Service rules without proper authority and for tolerating respondent to commit such violation.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that respondent Manuel Z. Araya, Jr. be REPRIMANDED for not faithfully reflecting the exact time of his arrival and departure in his daily time record with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely; and that Judge Rio Concepcion Achas and Clerk of Court III Renato L. Zapatos be ADMONISHED for violating the Civil Service Rules without authority from the Court with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.[7]
In his letter dated March 11, 2005,[9] Judge Achas explains that he did not and will never abet anyone's violation of the Civil Service Rules, Memorandum Circulars and existing laws. He stressed that his Comment dated September 9, 2003 was based on the logbook and other pertinent documents on hand plus his constant monitoring not only on respondent but also on the other rank and file employees in his sala. He challenges the complainants to come out with specific facts and data including the dates so that the same could be compared with the record files to ascertain whether he and his clerk of court side and/or abet the respondent. He avers that they will not hesitate to make the necessary complaint and/or report against any erring rank and file employees and similarly, he is open for reports and/or complaints against him.
In his letter dated March 22, 2005,[10] Zapatos explains that it was never his intention to abet, nor will he abet, respondent's alleged violations, nor of any of the personnel under his supervision for that matter. He never lacked exerting efforts of constantly reminding respondent of his duties and responsibilities as an employee and as utility worker in particular and of whatever misdemeanors respondent may have committed although he admitted that the reminders were mostly done orally and in private and in a friendly or brotherly approach, not through verbal scoldings or written memoranda. He further explains that record will show that for several rating periods in the past respondent was given a rating of “Satisfactory” and in the latest performance evaluation period covering the months of July to December 2004, respondent was given an “Unsatisfactory” rating. That he feels and believes that it would be unfair to hold him administratively liable for abetting respondent's alleged violations.
In its Resolution of October 10, 2005,[11] the Court referred the comments to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
In its Compliance[12] dated July 27, 2006, the OCA reiterates its findings and recommendation as contained in the Agenda Report of December 15, 2004, there being no sufficient and weighty justification nor supplemental explanation proffered by respondent to warrant dismissal of the complaint against him.
We adopt the findings of the OCA except as to the recommended action against Judge Achas and Zapatos.
On falsification of daily time record.
It is noted that per Judge Achas’s admission, respondent reports for work at 9:15-11:15 a.m. and 2:15-7:00 p.m. based on the flexi-time arrangement. However, the said arrangement was not faithfully reflected in respondent's DTR, which is an official document. Based on the above flexi-time arrangement, respondent reports for work for only six hours and forty-five minutes which is short of the required eight hours of work mandated by law. Thus, respondent incurred tardiness of one hour and fifteen minutes a day or six hours and fifteen minutes a week, which is very detrimental to the government service.
It must be stressed that all judicial employees must devote their official time to government service.[13] They must exercise at all times a high degree of professionalism and responsibility, as service in the judiciary is not only a duty; it is a mission. Moreover, the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the last and lowest of its employees.[14]
Public service requires integrity and discipline. For this reason, public servants must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and dedication to duty.[15] By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, government employees must faithfully adhere to, hold sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust; that all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.[16]
Respondent explained that to do his duties effectively and efficiently, he has to do those tasks at a very early morning hours or sometimes after the close of office hours.[17] This explanation cannot exculpate him from liability. At most, it can serve as a mitigating circumstance. Under the Civil Service Rules, off-setting of tardiness or absences by working for an equivalent number of minutes or hours by which an officer or employer has been tardy or absent, beyond the regular or approved working hours of the employees concerned, is not allowed.[18]
On frequent unauthorized absences or tardiness or loafing.
Records reveal that respondent's alleged absences/tardiness and loafing while on duty during regular office hours were with the knowledge and consent not only of the presiding judge but also of the branch clerk of court. Thus, the OCA finds both the presiding judge and the branch clerk of court responsible for tolerating the acts of respondent. We agree.
Too much leniency on the part of judges is frowned upon. We held in Lacurom v. Magbanua,[19] citing the case of Buenaventura v. Benedicto,[20] to wit:
We find the inclination of the respondent judge to leniency in the administrative supervision of his employees an undesirable trait. Oftentimes, such leniency provides the court employees the opportunity to commit minor transgressions of the laws and slight breaches of official duty ultimately leading to vicious delinquencies. The respondent judge should constantly keep a watchful eye on the conduct of his employees. He should realize that big start small. His constant scrutiny of the behavior of his employees would deter any abuse on the part of the latter in the exercise of their duties. Then, his subordinates would know that any misdemeanor will not remain unchecked. The slightest semblance of impropriety on the part of the employees of the court in the performance of their official duties stirs ripples of public suspicion and public distrust of the judicial administrators. The slightest breach of duty by and the slightest irregularity in the conduct of court officers and employees detract from the dignity of the courts and erode the faith of the people in the judiciary.In this case, Judge Achas and Zapatos were remiss in their duty of maintaining proper order in their court. Their failure to live up to the standards of responsibility required warrants disciplinary action for this Court cannot countenance any conduct, act, or omission on the part of those involved in the administration of justice which will violate the norms of public accountability and diminish, or tend to diminish, the faith of the people in the judicial system.[21]
As observed by the OCA, Judge Achas and Zapatos are liable for circumventing the Civil Service Rules without proper authority and for tolerating respondent to commit such violation.
The constant reminders of Zapatos to respondent done orally, in private and friendly or brotherly approach, prove futile as shown by the fact that respondent subsequently obtained an “Unsatisfactory” rating for the period covering July to December 2004. It bears stressing that a court employee need not be constantly reminded of his duties and responsibilities. It behooves upon the employee to do his job with utmost diligence without waiting for reminders. Zapatos should have issued a memorandum calling respondent's attention and if the same is not heeded, for him to report respondent's infractions to Judge Achas and the OCA for appropriate action. This Zapatos failed to do.
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 2-99 provides that absenteeism and tardiness even if such are not habitual or frequent shall be dealt with severely, and any falsification of DTRs to cover up for such absenteeism or tardiness shall constitute gross dishonesty or serious misconduct.[22] Dishonesty, being in the nature of grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for
reemployment in government service.[23] Under the Civil Service law,[24] respondent, whose DTR is evidently unrepresentative of the truth, should be punished with dismissal, although it is his first offense.
While this Court is duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline its errant employees and to weed out those who are undesirable, this Court also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy.[25] For when an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government.[26]
Considering that respondent utility worker is a first time offender and considering further that his reliance in good faith that the flexi-time arrangement is legal, and his being out of the office during office hours is brought about by the flexi-time erroneously allowed by Judge Achas who presumably knows the law coupled with the fact that he did his tasks before and after office hours so as not to disturb his co-employees, serve to mitigate his liability.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds Manuel Z. Araya, Jr. guilty of dishonesty in not faithfully reflecting the exact time of his arrival and departure in his daily time record and is REPRIMANDED with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Judge Rio Concepcion Achas and Clerk of Court III Renato L. Zapatos are REPRIMANDED for violating the Civil Service Rules without authority from the Court with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, (Chairperson), Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 7.
[2] Id. at 11-13.
[3] Id. at 25-26.
[4] Id. at 8.
[5] Id. at 9-10.
[6] Id. at 1-6.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 15.
[9] Id. at 16.
[10] Id. at 19.
[11] Id. at 32.
[12] Id. at 33-41.
[13] Re: Findings of Irregularity on the Bundy Cards of Personnel of the Regional Trial Court Branch 26 and Municipal Trial Court, Medina, Misamis Oriental, A.M. No. 04-11-671-RTC, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 1, 12.
[14] Id.
[15] Court Personnel of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court-San Carlos City v. Llamas, A.M No. P-04-1925, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 60, 62 citing Mirano v. Saavedra, 225 SCRA 77, 85.
[16] Id.
[17] Rollo, page 25.
[18] Section 9, Rule XVII, CSC Resolution No. 91-1631, Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Rules, dated December 27, 1991.
[19] 443 Phil. 711, 720-721 (2003).
[20] 148 Phil. 63, 71 (1971).
[21] Pimentel v. De Leoz, 448 Phil. 223, 243 (2003).
[22] Office of the Court Administrator v. Breta, A.M. No. P-05-2023, March 6, 2006, 484 SCRA 114, 116-117.
[23] Id.
[24] Section 23, Rule XIV.
Sec. 23. Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave, and light, depending on the gravity of its nature and effects of said acts on the government service.[25] Aquino v. Fernandez, A.M. No. P-01-1475, October 17, 2003, 413 SCRA 597, 607.
The following are grave offenses with its corresponding penalties:
(a) Dishonesty (1st Offense, Dismissal)
(b) Falsification of official document (1st Offense Dismissal)
[26] Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, G.R. No. 155732, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 593, 608.