509 Phil. 580; 102 OG No. 47, 7650 (November 20, 2006)
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
There are three (3) bundy clocks in the Hall of Justice of Medina, Misamis Oriental. One for each Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branches 26 and 42 and one for the Municipal Trial Court. Only RTC 42 has a rack for their bundy cards. On the day of the audit, November 11, 2004, the team discovered that as of 8:11 a.m. most of the bundy cards of employees in the MTC and RTC, Branch 26 have already been punched in although the employees concerned were not yet in the office in violation of the rules on the strict observance of prescribed working hours and rules on punctuality and attendance (Administrative Circular Bo. 2-99, dated January 15, 1999, Circular Nos. 63-2001, dated October 3, 2001 and 87-2001 dated November 29, 2001). In connection therewith the bundy cards of the staff of the two courts (xerox copies of which are hereby attached as Annexes :A: to :A-5:) were taken by the team for indorsement to the Legal Office, Office of the Court Administrator and the Office of Administrative Services for the appropriate action.The audit team then forwarded the time cards of the employees involved and referred the matter to the OCA Legal Office and the Office of Administrative Services for appropriate action. Pursuant thereto, the said employees were required to comment on the findings of the judicial audit team.
The personnel of the MTC, Medina are the following:
Name Time in on Nov. 11, 2004 RemarksPamfilo Sanches 6:13 Already in court when the team arrived Cecilia P. Bagsican 7:20 Already in court when the team arrived Anita Pupos 7:21 Already in court when the team arrived Necias C. Abuzo 7:22 Ireneo M. Baja 7:23 Roderick S. Orimaco 7:23 Already in court when the team arrived Jaime D. Aguilar - On leave Victoria C. Alaba - On leave
When informed of the team's findings, the presiding judge was surprised as she had advised them when she assumed her post of the Court's strict policy on punctuality of court personnel.
The following are the personnel of the RTC, Branch 26, Medina:
Name Time in on Nov. 11, 2004 RemarksRodriguez J. Orimaco - On leaveEllogene C. Atienza 7:45 Not in courtElsie B. Sabuga 7:46 In courtDina D. Adran 7:47 Not in courtAtty. Michael Duce Juson 7:48 Erased but indentation remainsSyvil J. Pajaron 7:49 In courtMary Ann M. Redondo 7:50 Erased but indentation remainsLizandro P. Simon, Jr. 7:50 Not in courtManolita D. Torayno 7:50 In courtServando C. Simon, Jr. 8:12 In court
The audit team was not able to take the bundy cards of Mr. Arthur G. Mondigo and Salde G. Elago.
Looking over these cards, one has to notice the one-minute interval of the entries. It is not unlikely to presume that only one person is "assigned" to punch the cards.
It is also worthy to note that the security guard Candido Dumalo-an of the Fidelity Security and Manpower Services, Corp. was on duty at that time. When confronted about the anomaly, he reasoned out that it was not his duty to monitor the attendance of the employees and the regularity in the punching of their cards.[1]
1. RODRIGUEZ J. ORIMACO, Court Sheriff, was on sick leave even weeks before 11 November 2004. He suffered a mild stroke due to hypertension per doctors' findings. He even reported to work in the early days of November, but he later went on leave because he was still weak. His leave of absence is reflected in the Monthly Report of Absences, Tardiness for the month of November, hereto attached as Annex "E."In its Report dated July 29, 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator made the following recommendation:
2. Court Legal Researcher Servando C. Simon, Jr., Court Interpreter Dina D. Adran, Clerks Syvil C. Pajaron and Ellogene C. Atienza, Stenographers Manolito D. Torayno, Mary Ann R. Redondo, and Elsie B. Sabuga were present that morning of 11 November 2004, although Interpreter Adran, Clerk Atienza and Stenographer Redondo were not inside the office when the Audit Team arrived because after punching their card at the lobby of the Hall of Justice, they went to the St. [Isidro] Parish Church, which is located just across the municipal compound where courts [are] situated too. They went there, together with the other LGU employees, purposely to attend a funeral mass.
Their action in attending the funeral mass for only a short time is not only a Christian act affording last respect to a fellow worker in the government and a friend but also of showing camaraderie to the entire Medina-based government employees' family.
It is worthy to note that we have cultivated a closer relationship with the LGU without compromising the courts' independence. We, court employees, join the Local Government of Medina in Flag Raising Ceremonies (see attached LGU Memorandum Order No. 01-2004 as Annex F).
4. Lizandro P. Simon, the Court's Process Server, was serving a court order to one Bernardo C. Labarete, a complaining witness in Pp. vs. Gabales, (CC No. 1451-M [2004]) a criminal case pending before our court.
5. Arthur G. Mondigo, a Court Stenographer, ever aware of the judicial audit, informed me earlier that morning via text message that he'll be coming late to office because he'll have a very important errand to do. He arrived at the office at 9:20 in the morning. Such circumstance was duly reflected in the monthly report of absences, tardiness for the month of November, hereto attached as Annex E.
6. Salde G. Elago, the Court Utility Aide, came to the office at 6:19, did his errand, went out to take his breakfast, and returned while the audit team was still inside the office. His attendance was noted by the audit team.
EVALUATION: An examination of the record shows that Pamfilo Sanchez, Jr., Cecilia P. Bagsican, Anita Pupos and Roderick S. Orimaco, personnel of the MTC were already in court when the audit team arrived at 8:11 in the morning of 11 November 2004. The team likewise found that Elsie B. Sabuga, Syvil C. Pajaron, Manolita D. Torayno and Servando C. Simon, Jr., personnel of the Regional Trial Court, were also in court at the same time and date. For this reason, they should be removed as respondents in this case.The Court rules that the appropriate charge against respondents Atienza, Adran and Redondo should have been "loafing," which is defined under Civil Service Rules as frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular hours.[2] The word "frequent," however, connotes that the employees absent themselves from duty more than once.[3] This is the first time that a random check was conducted by an audit team, and is likewise the first time that the said respondents were caught outside their respective posts during office hours. Moreover, they had only been gone for a short while to attend a funeral mass and immediately went back to their posts. It would thus be erroneous to penalize them for loafing on the basis of one circumstance only, as it would be barren of factual basis.
As regards Necias C. Abuzo and Ireneo M. Baja of the Municipal Trial Court, the audit team was already in court when these people arrived. The same is true as regards Ellogene C. Etienza, Dina D. Adran, Mary Ann M. Redondo and Lizandro P. Simon of the Regional Trial Court.
Several respondents submitted individual Comments. We shall discuss each of the comments filed by those who were not in court when the audit team arrived but whose bundy cards show they had timed in before the audit arrived.
Necias C. Abuzo denies that another person had punched her bundy card. She avers that because of her preoccupation regarding the arrival of the audit team, she had gone to the courthouse early but [forgot] to administer her husband's morning medication. Her husband was suffering from Parkinson's disease and could not take his medicine by himself. For this reason, she had to rush home, which was only three blocks away from the court, to administer her husband's medicine. When she returned to the courthouse, the audit team had already arrived.
We find the excuse given by respondent Abuzo to be sufficiently convincing. We believe that she could have really forgotten to administer her husband's medicine because of her preoccupation regarding the audit team's coming. It is not infrequent that court personnel in the rural areas feel apprehension when they learn that an audit team is coming, regardless of whether there is anything the matter with their records. It is, therefore, not impossible that Abuzo forgot her husband's medication.
In the case of Ireneo M. Baja, a junior process server in the Municipal Court, he avers that he had gone to the courthouse early enough and had personally punched his bundy card. However, he immediately left to serve the notices to the parties in "People vs. Jesse de Leon". He attached copies of the subpoena and his return to the Comment. These documents reveal that indeed service was made on November 11, 2004, the date the audit team was in their court.
Ellogene C. Atienza, in his Comment, avers that he was in the courthouse early in the morning of November 11, 2004 and had personally timed in his bundy card at 7:45 A.M. (as appears in said bundy card attached to the Rollo). However, he had left the office and had gone to attend the funeral mass for Lutherdy N. Cabus, a municipal employee who died after serving the municipality for a number of years. He attached a certificate signed by Rev. Fr. Nestor D. Caduyag, SSJV, stating that a mass for the deceased Cabus was offered at 8:00 in the morning of November 11, 2004.
Dina D. Adran, a court interpreter in the Regional Trial Court, sent her Comment denying that her bundy card was punched before she arrived at her station contrary to existing rules. She avers that she had gone to the courthouse early and had personally punched her card. However, she admits that she was not at the station when the audit team arrived because she had proceeded to the church which is located right in front of their office, to attend the funeral mass offered for the deceased Lutherby N. Cabus, a municipal employee who had served the government for 17 years.
Mary Ann M. Redondo, a court stenographer, avers the same explanation given by Ellogene C. Atienza and Dina D. Adran.
In this predominantly Catholic country, the custom of condoling with the bereaved and attending rights and ceremonies for the deceased is an enduring custom. Hence, we do not blame Ellogene C. Atienza and Dina D. Adran for leaving their places of work and going across to the church where the requiem mass was being offered. However, we find that the action of punching their cards before going to the church a bit dishonest. Both respondents were well aware that the mass which was supposed to begin at 8:00 a.m. would last for at least an hour and that they would certainly be late to report to their work stations. Because of this and to prevent their being regarded as tardy, they had punched in their cards before going to attend the mass. If they were honest, they should have punched their cards when they arrived after the mass.
It is perhaps true that the daily time record, be it handwritten or by bundy clock, is the most violated civil service form. But the fact that it is commonly violated does not make the violation any less criminal. For this reason, these two respondents should be made examples so that the others may be warned that the Court is serious in enforcing the prescribed office hours.
The allegation that the bundy cards of several employees may have been punched in by only one man considering the time intervals shown in the audit team's report has not been established and at most it is purely speculative because in small towns, it is not uncommon for the employees of one office to arrive at practically the same time.
RECOMMENDATION; We respectfully recommend that this case as against Panfilo Sanchez Jr., Cecilia P. Bagsican, Anita Pupos, Roderick S. Orimaco, Elsie B. Sabuga, Syvil J. Pajaron, Manolita D. Torayno and Servando C. simon Jr. be DISMISSED, it appearing in the report of the audit team that they were already in the court when the team arrived at 8:11 o'clock A.M.
We further recommend that the explanations of Necias C. Abuzo and Ireneo M. Baja, be considered satisfactory and this case be DISMISSED as against them.
As against Ellogene C. Atienza, Dina D. Adran and Mary Ann M. Redondo, although the penalty for dishonesty is dismissal even if the commission is a first offense, however, their dishonesty was only to save a miniscule part of their wages and because of their desire to pay proper respect to the deceased employee, we respectfully recommend that they be SUSPENDED for one (1) month without pay and WARNED that the commission of a similar infraction will be dealt with more severely.