ISABEL D. MARQUEZ, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CABA, LA UNION, COMPLAINANT, VS. JOCELYN C. FERNANDEZ, STENOGRAPHER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CABA, LA UNION, RESPONDENT.

Marquez versus Fernandez

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Isabel Marquez, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Caba, La Union, against Jocelyn Fernandez, a stenographer of the same court. The charge is frequent unauthorized absences or tardiness, and falsification of a public document. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats dishonesty in the judiciary: even where the proof does not pin the actual falsification on the employee, the submission of a falsified document to cover up absences is itself grave dishonesty, punishable by dismissal on the first offense.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed with the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bauang, La Union, Judge Rose Mary Molina-Alim, who conducted her own investigation. In her resolution dated February 28, 2006, the judge found Fernandez liable for absenteeism and tardiness, and for falsification of a public document, and recommended dismissal from the service. She referred the resolution and the records to the Office of the Court Administrator.

The Office of the Court Administrator concurred that Fernandez was liable as charged, but recommended the lesser penalty of one year suspension without pay, treating her medical problems and her admission of guilt as mitigating. It also recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter. The Supreme Court re-docketed the complaint, required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case on the records, and, after Fernandez failed to comply despite a reiterated directive, dispensed with her manifestation. The case was then resolved by the Court.

Facts

From September to November 2004, the daily time records of Fernandez showed tardiness or undertime almost every day. The Clerk of Court asked her to explain, and Fernandez answered that she had health problems arising from a fractured arm. A later memorandum drew no reply, and a second one drew a reply repeating the same claim of health problems. Marquez found the explanation unsatisfactory, noting that Fernandez looked strong and healthy and was often seen roaming the court premises and the municipal hall. She also noted that Fernandez incurred unauthorized absences for three months, from September to November 2004, and that while her records indicated vacation leave, no prior notices of leave were filed as the rules require.

In November 2004, Fernandez submitted a medical certificate from the Ilocos Training and Regional Medical Center stating that she was treated on November 5, on November 22 to 26, and on November 30, 2004, and needed medical attention for twenty days. Verification with the hospital showed that she was examined and treated there only on November 5, 2004. The hospital's original certification, issued on November 26, 2004, contained no such additional dates. It was obvious that details not in the original had been introduced into the copy Fernandez submitted.

In her answer, Fernandez explained that her tardiness and absences arose from mental anxiety over her medical problems, that the treatment was unsuccessful and infection set in, and that she feared amputation. On the certificate, she admitted she was examined only on November 5, 2004, and claimed that Marquez insisted the certificate be changed to reflect her healing period. She said she returned to the medical center, her physician was not around, and a nurse in the orthopedic department told her to type the period on the certificate for later signing. She typed the insertion but forgot to have it signed before submitting it. Marquez replied that in six months Fernandez incurred ninety-three and a half days of absence, and that a comparison of the hospital's copy with the submitted copy showed the insertions.

Issues

• Whether or not Fernandez is guilty of habitual tardiness and absenteeism.
• Whether or not Fernandez is guilty of dishonesty for submitting a falsified medical certificate.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal is the proper sanction.

Applicable Provisions

Civil Service Memorandum Circular Number 23, Series of 1998, defines habitual tardiness:

Any employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of the member of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least two consecutive months during the year.

This definition supplies the test by which Fernandez's daily time records are measured.

Civil Service Memorandum Circular Number 4, Series of 1991, defines habitual absence:

Under Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991, of the Civil Service Commission, an officer or employee in the civil service shall be considered habitually absent if he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credits under the leave law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive months during the year.

This definition supplies the test by which her unauthorized absences are measured.

Section 23, Rule XIV of the Administrative Code of 1987, classifies the offenses:

Under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Administrative Code of 1987, dishonesty (par. a) and falsification (par. f) are considered grave offenses warranting the penalty of dismissal from service upon commission of the first offense.

This provision fixes dismissal as the penalty for the first offense of dishonesty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Fernandez violated the rules on tardiness and absenteeism. It recalled that moral obligation, household chores, traffic, health conditions, and domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient to excuse habitual tardiness, and that judiciary employees must be role models in observing that public office is a public trust. Her failure to notify her office of her absences was itself sufficient cause to discipline her, since the Civil Service Rules require notice of absence due to illness to the immediate supervisor or agency head.

On the second issue, the Court held that her use of a false medical certificate constituted dishonesty. The hospital's copy showed she was seen, examined, and treated on November 5, 2004 only; the copy she submitted carried an inserted entry for November 22 to 26, typed in a font smaller than the hospital's entries. Her explanation that the nurse named Rose made the insertion was a lame excuse. The Court conceded that whether she herself falsified the document or someone did so at her behest was not established, but held that this hanging question did not exculpate her: upon proof of a submitted falsified document, she carried the burden of proving that she did not commit the serious administrative offense of dishonesty.

On the third issue, the Court refused the recommended leniency. Dishonesty is a serious offense that reflects a person's character and exposes moral decay that destroys honor, virtue, and integrity; by her dishonest act Fernandez became unfit to remain in the judiciary. Dishonesty being a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense, the penalty for habitual tardiness and absenteeism is subsumed in the penalty of dismissal.

Doctrine

Habitual tardiness is incurred when an employee is tardy ten times a month for at least two consecutive months during the year, regardless of the number of minutes. Habitual absence is incurred when unauthorized absences exceed the allowable two and a half days of monthly leave credits for at least three months in a semester or three consecutive months during the year. Health conditions, domestic and financial concerns, and traffic are not sufficient excuses for habitual tardiness, and failure to notify the office of an absence due to illness is itself a ground for discipline.

Dishonesty and falsification are grave offenses punishable by dismissal on the first offense. An employee who submits a falsified document to cover up unauthorized absences bears the burden of proving that she did not commit dishonesty; the failure to establish who made the falsification does not exculpate her.

Disposition

The Court found Fernandez guilty of habitual tardiness, absenteeism, and dishonesty, and dismissed her from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits except earned leaves, if any.

Remember This

Memorize this line: upon proof of a submitted falsified document, the employee carries the burden of proving that she did not commit dishonesty. Examiners use this case to test the definitions of habitual tardiness and absenteeism under the Civil Service circulars, and the rule that dishonesty in the judiciary warrants dismissal on the first offense.