OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, PETITIONER, VS. ROLANDO SAA, RESPONDENTS.

Office of the Court Administrator versus Saa

The Case

This is an administrative case that began as a complaint by a Clerk of Court against three employees of another court, and ended with that same Clerk of Court himself held liable. Rolando Saa, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Camarines Norte, charged Rosalyn Mislos-Loja, Sandra Cimafranca, and Dennis Cruz with dishonesty, neglect of duty, misconduct, inefficiency, and incompetence, arising from the allegedly belated mailing of a notice of cancellation in a civil case pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. The case matters for two reasons. First, it shows how the Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, may itself uncover and punish an offense committed by the very complainant in the course of investigating his complaint. Second, it states the standard of conduct demanded of Clerks of Court, who are required to be persons of competence, honesty, and probity.

Procedural History

The complaint of Rolando Saa was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. In its memorandum dated July 17, 2000, the Office recommended dismissal of the charges against Mislos-Loja, Cimafranca, and Cruz, finding that the late mailing was solely the fault of Utility Worker Alelei Dispo. In the same memorandum, however, the Office noted that while Saa claimed to have been in Quezon City on June 5 and June 6, 1997, his Daily Time Record for June 1997 showed him present at his own court on those days. Acting on that memorandum, the Supreme Court issued a resolution on September 4, 2000 dismissing the charges against the three employees for lack of merit, admonishing Dispo for negligence with a stern warning, and requiring Saa to explain why no administrative and criminal charges should be filed against him for falsifying his daily time record for June 1997. Saa submitted his explanation dated September 27, 2000, and the Court referred the matter once more to the Office of the Court Administrator. That Office, in its memorandum dated December 21, 2000, found Saa's explanation unworthy of credence and recommended that he be found guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct and fined five thousand pesos. The matter then came before the Supreme Court for decision.

Facts

Rolando Saa was the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Camarines Norte. He was also a defendant in a civil case pending before Branch 42 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. He alleged that he traveled from Camarines Norte to Quezon City to attend hearings scheduled on June 5 and June 6, 1997, only to learn that the presiding judge was abroad. He claimed that he had received no notice of postponement, and that when he returned to Camarines Norte two days later, he received a notice apparently signed by Mislos-Loja on May 16, 1997, but registered in the Office of the Court only on June 7, 1997 and received by the New Quezon City Post Office on June 9, 1997. On this basis he filed an administrative complaint against Mislos-Loja, Cimafranca, and Cruz.

The Office of the Court Administrator found that after Mislos-Loja signed the notice of cancellation on May 16, 1997, it was given directly to Utility Worker Alelei Dispo for mailing, but Dispo mailed it only on June 3, 1997. Cimafranca had nothing to do with the mailing, and Cruz was not yet appointed process server when the notice was sent. The late mailing was thus solely the fault of Dispo.

But the investigation revealed something else. While Saa claimed to have been in Quezon City attending hearings on June 5 and June 6, 1997, his Daily Time Record for June 1997 showed him present at his own court on those days. In his explanation, Saa said that he had inadvertently entered June 25, 1997 as his vacation leave when it should have been June 5, 1997, and attributed the mistake to lapses of memory, volume of work, and age. The Office of the Court Administrator rejected this explanation, observing that Saa was absent not for one day but for two consecutive days, as his own complaint confirmed, and yet he did not indicate leave for both days.

Issues

• Whether or not respondent Saa falsified his Daily Time Record for June 1997 by making it appear that he reported for work on June 5 and June 6, 1997 when his own complaint showed he was in Quezon City on those days.
• Whether or not respondent Saa's explanation of inadvertence, lapses of memory, volume of work, and age exonerates him from administrative liability.
• Whether or not respondent Saa, as Clerk of Court, should be sanctioned for dishonesty and gross misconduct, and with what penalty.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It rests on the settled administrative standard for Clerks of Court, which the Court states in its own words:

Clerks of Court are required to be persons of competence, honesty and probity since they are specifically imbued with the mandate of safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings, to earn and preserve respect therefor, to maintain loyalty thereto and to the judge as a superior officer, to maintain the authenticity and correctness of court records and to uphold the confidence of the public in the administration of justice.

This standard is the measure against which Saa's falsified Daily Time Record is judged, and it is the reason the Court treats his act as a serious offense against the administration of justice.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court upheld the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator that Saa falsified his Daily Time Record for June 1997. His own complaint stated that he was in Quezon City on June 5 and June 6, 1997, yet his record showed him present at his court on those days.

On the second issue, the Court held that Saa's explanation was unsatisfactory. It accounted for the anomaly regarding his June 5, 1997 entry but did not explain his June 6, 1997 entry. The Court ruled that his claim of honest mistake due to lapses of memory, volume of work, and age does not exonerate him from liability but may only, at most, mitigate it.

On the third issue, the Court held that Saa, as Clerk of Court, holds an essential and ranking position in the judicial system, and that his conduct violated the norms of public accountability. The Court condemned any conduct, act, or omission on the part of those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norms of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary. It thus found him guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct and imposed the recommended fine.

Doctrine

A Clerk of Court is required to be a person of competence, honesty, and probity, because the office carries the mandate of safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings, maintaining the authenticity and correctness of court records, and upholding public confidence in the administration of justice. Falsifying a Daily Time Record to make it appear that one reported for work on days one was actually absent is dishonesty and gross misconduct. An explanation of inadvertence, lapses of memory, volume of work, and age does not exonerate the erring employee; at most, it mitigates the penalty. The Supreme Court may act on an offense discovered in the course of investigating a complaint, even against the complainant himself, and any conduct that violates public accountability or tends to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary is condemned.

Disposition

The Court found respondent Saa guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct, fined him five thousand pesos, and sternly warned him that the commission of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that a Clerk of Court must be a person of competence, honesty, and probity, and that a claim of honest mistake may mitigate but never exonerates. Examiners use this case to test the administrative liability of court personnel for falsification of Daily Time Records, and the principle that the Supreme Court may discipline the complainant himself when his own complaint exposes his wrongdoing.