A.M. No. P-97-1234. August 18, 1997
CRISTETA ORFILA, COMPLAINANT, VS. RONA S. QUIROZ, STENOGRAPHER III, RTC-BR. 18, MANILA, RESPONDENT.
PADILLA, J.:
of Cristeta Orfila, Utility Worker, Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Manila,
charging Rona Quiroz, Stenographer III, same court, with habitual tardiness and
loafing around during office hours. It
was alleged that respondent Quiroz frequently leaves the office during office
hours without permission from her immediate superior or from the presiding
judge of said court.
On 9 October 1996, Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez,
by way of 1st Indorsement,
referred the matter to Judge Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr. for Comment and
Recommendation, the same being within his authority as judge of RTC , Branch
18, Manila. Acting thereon, Judge
Laguio issued a memorandum directing respondent Quiroz to submit her comment on
the charges against her.
In her comment, respondent Quiroz denies the charges against her
stressing that her daily time record will show that she has been regularly
reporting for work. She claims that she has been performing “diligently and
devotedly all the tasks assigned to her” which include transcribing her
stenographic notes and typing court orders and decisions. She avers that the instant administrative
complaint was filed by complainant Orfila against her merely in retaliation for
the administrative complaint that she (respondent Quiroz) had earlier filed
against herein complaint.
On 5 November 1996, Judge Laguio conducted a hearing during which
complainant and respondent testified and adduced evidence to support their
respective allegations. On 8 November
1996, respondent Quiroz furnished Judge Laguio with a copy of her supplemental
comment dated 7 November 1996 which she filed with the Office of Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo.
Thereafter, Judge Laguio submitted his report dated 6 December
1996 stating that:
“After a careful consideration of the testimonies of the
complainant and the respondent, the undersigned Judge is inclined to believe
the complainant. The fact that the
complainant filed the complaint against the respondent in retaliation for the
latter’s filing an administrative complaint against the former, is not
detrimental to the complainant’s credibility, having in mind the probabilities
of her allegations and respective characters of the two protagonists. On many occasions during the periods in
question, the undersigned had called the respondent to take some dictation, but
she was not around, and the undersigned had been told that she had just gone
out for a while, or was in the ladies room (some of her officemates had covered
up for her).
Considering that the acts complaint [sic] of are merely light
service offenses (Memorandum Circular No. 8, series of 1970) it is respectfully
recommended that a fine equivalent to five days salary be imposed on
respondent.”
In a memorandum addressed to Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa,
dated 19 December 1996, Deputy Court Administrator Suarez recommended that:
“Premises considered, the undersigned respectfully recommends that
respondent Rona S. Quiroz be suspended for one (1) month without pay with a
stern warning that a repetition of same or similar act in the future will be
dealt with more severely. Likewise, it
is recommended that complainant Cristeta Orfila be advised to settle amicably
her differences with the respondent, an act that is expected especially of court
employees.
The court is in accord with the findings of the Investigating
Judge as well as the evaluation and report of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) particularly with respect to the charge that respondent
Quiroz had been loafing on the job. Even the Investigating Judge himself attested to the veracity of this
charge when he reported, and this we quote again, that:
“x x x On many occasions during the periods in question, the
undersigned had called the respondent to take some dictation, but she was not
around, and the undersigned had been told that she had gone out for a while, or
was in the ladies room (some of her officemates had covered up for her).”
Respondent Quiroz did not directly deny this particular charge
against her of loafing on the job. Her
justification that her daily time record will show her daily presence in the
office is unconvincing. One can simply
enter in one’s daily time record the time of arrival in the office, thereafter,
leave the same and then just come back in the afternoon in time for the close
of office hours. In such case, it would
obviously appear in the daily time record that the employee was in the office
the whole day when in fact, she was not.
The act of respondent Quiroz of frequently leaving the office
during office hours necessarily hampers her efficiency as a court
stenographer. It bears stressing that
the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the
dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, is
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. This Court cannot countenance any act or
omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice
which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just
tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary. (Roque, et al. v. Grimaldo,
A.M. No. P-95-1148, 30 July 1996; Re: Ms. Teresita S. Sabido, 242 SCRA 432
[1995])
In their respective reports, the Investigating Judge and the OCA
have recommended different amounts of fine to be imposed as penalty on
respondent Quiroz. The investigating
Judge has recommended a fine equivalent to respondent Quiroz’ five (5) days
salary while the OCA has recommended a fine equivalent to her one (1) month
salary. The Court finds the penalty
recommended by the Investigating Judge to be the more appropriate penalty in this
case as it involves merely light civil service offenses. But the Court chooses to impose a penalty in
the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00).
The Court notes with disapproval the pervasive atmosphere of
animosity between complainant Orfila and respondent Quiroz as evidenced by the
fact that both have filed administrative charges against each other. It has also been brought to the Court’s
attention that a great deal of official time have already been wasted by them
(complainant and respondent) in monitoring and spying on each other’s
actuations as bases for future complaints. Their conduct is certainly prejudicial to the best interest of the
service and cannot be allowed to
continue. The Court strongly urges
complainant and respondent to amicably settle their differences at the soonest
possible time. It is well to remind
them that as court employees, they are, at all times, expected to act with
strict propriety and decorum so as to earn and keep the public’s respect for
and confidence in the judicial service. (Gratela v. Yonzon, Jr., 256 SCRA 587 (1996); Tablate v. Tanjutco-Seechung,
234 SCRA 161 [1994])
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Quiroz GUILTY of
loafing on the job and imposes on her a FINE of Two Thousand (P2,000.00)
Pesos, with WARNING that any repetition by her of the same or similar acts will
be dealt with more severely.
Bellosillo, Vitug, Kapunan, and
Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.