CRISTETA ORFILA, COMPLAINANT, VS. RONA S. QUIROZ, STENOGRAPHER III, RTC-BR. 18, MANILA, RESPONDENT.

Orfila versus Quiroz

The Case

This is an administrative matter in which Cristeta Orfila, a utility worker of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 18, charged Rona Quiroz, a stenographer of the same court, with habitual tardiness and loafing around during office hours. The complaint alleged that Quiroz frequently left the office during working hours without permission from her immediate superior or from the presiding judge. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's own statement of the standard of conduct it demands of every person in the judicial service, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, and because it shows how the Court treats petty offenses among court personnel and the animosity that so often breeds them.

Procedural History

The complaint was an undated letter-complaint filed with the Supreme Court. The Deputy Court Administrator referred it by first indorsement to Judge Perfecto Laguio, Jr., the presiding judge of the branch, for comment and recommendation. The judge directed Quiroz to submit her comment, received the parties' evidence at a hearing, and thereafter submitted a report finding the complainant credible and recommending a fine equivalent to five days salary. The Deputy Court Administrator, in turn, recommended to the Chief Justice a suspension of one month without pay. The matter was resolved by the Supreme Court itself in its administrative jurisdiction, and it adopted the finding of guilt while fixing its own penalty.

Facts

Cristeta Orfila, a utility worker in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 18, filed a letter-complaint charging Rona Quiroz, a stenographer in the same branch, with habitual tardiness and with loafing around during office hours. The complaint alleged that Quiroz frequently left the office during office hours without permission from her immediate superior or from the presiding judge.

The complaint was referred to Judge Laguio for comment and recommendation. Quiroz denied the charges and stressed that her daily time record would show that she had been regularly reporting for work. She claimed that she had been performing diligently and devotedly all the tasks assigned to her, which included transcribing her stenographic notes and typing court orders and decisions. She averred that the complaint was filed merely in retaliation for an administrative complaint that she herself had earlier filed against Orfila.

Judge Laguio conducted a hearing at which both parties testified and adduced evidence. In his report, he stated that he was inclined to believe the complainant, and that the retaliatory motive did not impair her credibility. He recounted that on many occasions during the periods in question he had called the respondent to take some dictation, but she was not around, and he had been told that she had just gone out for a while, or was in the ladies room, with some of her officemates covering up for her. He recommended a fine equivalent to five days salary, treating the acts as light service offenses. The Deputy Court Administrator recommended a heavier penalty of one month suspension without pay, and also recommended that the complainant be advised to settle her differences with the respondent amicably.

Issues

• Whether or not respondent Quiroz is guilty of loafing on the job during office hours.
• Whether or not her daily time record showing regular reporting for work sufficiently rebuts the charge.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the investigating judge, a fine equivalent to five days salary, is the appropriate penalty.

Applicable Provisions

The decision classifies the acts complained of as light service offenses under Memorandum Circular Number 8, series of 1970, and quotes the circular in the report of the investigating judge:

Considering that the acts complaint 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.

This classification bears on the case because it fixes the range of penalty and leads the Court to reject the heavier suspension recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found Quiroz guilty of loafing on the job. It agreed with the findings of the investigating judge and the evaluation of the Office of the Court Administrator, and it noted that the respondent did not directly deny the charge. The Court quoted the judge's observation:

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).

On the second issue, the Court held that the daily time record is unconvincing as a defense. 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, so that it would appear that the employee was in the office the whole day when in fact she was not. The Court stressed that the act of frequently leaving the office during office hours necessarily hampers the efficiency of a court stenographer, and that the conduct 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. The Court cannot countenance any act or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.

On the third issue, the Court found the penalty recommended by the investigating judge to be the more appropriate one, since the case involves merely light civil service offenses, but it chose to impose a fine of two thousand pesos instead. The Court also noted with disapproval the pervasive atmosphere of animosity between the two employees, evidenced by their administrative charges against each other, and the official time wasted in monitoring and spying on each other. It strongly urged them to settle their differences amicably, reminding 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.

Doctrine

First, 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. The Court cannot countenance any act or omission on the part of 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.

Second, frequent unauthorized absences from one's post during office hours constitute loafing on the job, and a daily time record is not conclusive proof of actual presence at work, since an employee may record an arrival, leave, and return only at the close of office hours.

Third, where the acts complained of are light service offenses under Memorandum Circular Number 8, series of 1970, the appropriate penalty is a fine rather than suspension, and the Court may fix the amount in its discretion.

Fourth, court employees are at all times expected to act with strict propriety and decorum, and personal animosity and mutual spying among them are prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Disposition

The Court found respondent Quiroz guilty of loafing on the job and imposed on her a fine of two thousand pesos, with a warning that any repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that the conduct of everyone in an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Examiners use this case for the administrative liability of court personnel for loafing and for the rule that a daily time record does not prove actual presence on the job.