OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. CYRIL JOTIC, COURT INTERPRETER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 64, TARLAC CITY; AND JOSELITO R. ESPINOSA, PROCESS SERVER, O…

Office of the Court Administrator versus Jotic

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by the Office of the Court Administrator against two employees of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City: Cyril Jotic, a Court Interpreter in Branch 64, and Joselito Espinosa, a Process Server in the Office of the Clerk of Court. Both were charged with dishonesty for entering false times of arrival in their attendance logbooks on the day of a surprise inspection. The case matters because it fixes the rule that any willful false entry in an attendance record is dishonesty and falsification, a grave offense, and it shows how the Court calibrates the penalty when long service and a first offense are present.

Procedural History

The case began as an anonymous complaint received by the Office of the Court Administrator in September 2007, alleging that certain employees were punching in the daily time records of court personnel. The Office dispatched a team to conduct a discreet investigation, which was carried out on two days in November 2007. The Office then submitted a memorandum to the Supreme Court reporting what the team had found. The Court directed both respondents to comment, and each filed a comment. The Office recommended that both be found guilty of dishonesty and dismissed, and that the Branch Clerk of Court be required to explain her failure to supervise. The matter reached the Supreme Court as an original administrative proceeding, and the Court resolved it in a Resolution promulgated in November 2008.

Facts

On the morning of the inspection, the investigating team arrived at the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City shortly after eight o'clock. Only a few employees were present, and the Office of the Clerk of Court was still closed. When that office opened, the team inspected the logbook and discovered that Process Server Espinosa had superimposed the time 8:05 a.m. over an originally written 7:40 a.m. Asked about it, he said his watch was malfunctioning.

At Branch 64, the team found Court Interpreter Jotic writing in the logbook. She had logged her time as 7:58 a.m. below the line the team had drawn. Asked why, she said she was rattled and had really intended to write 8:58 a.m. The team wrote 8:58 a.m. in the logbook and initialed it. Jotic then acted discourteously, slamming several chairs in the presence of the team. Later, accompanied by the Branch Clerk of Court, she barged into another branch and angrily confronted the team, insisting she had arrived at 8:28 a.m. and accusing a team member of forcing her to write 8:58 a.m.

In her comment, Jotic admitted she arrived at 8:28 a.m. but wrote 7:58 a.m. because she was rattled, and she accused the team of rude behavior. Espinosa admitted the superimposition but claimed good faith, saying he relied on the information of Sheriff Leaño that the correct time was 8:05 a.m. Records showed that both had incurred no tardiness from July to November 2007, except on the day of the surprise inspection. Jotic had served more than fifteen years, and Espinosa more than twenty one years, and this was the first offense for each.

Issues

• Whether or not Court Interpreter Cyril Jotic and Process Server Joselito Espinosa were dishonest in not reflecting the correct time in their attendance logbook on the day of the inspection.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator should be imposed in full.
• Whether or not the Branch Clerk of Court should be required to explain her failure to supervise the personnel of her branch.

Applicable Provisions

Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order 292 classifies the offenses and their penalties:

Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave, and light, depending on the gravity of its nature and effects of said acts on the government service. The following are grave offense with its corresponding penalties: (a) Dishonesty (1st offense, Dismissal) (b) Falsification of official documents (1st offense, Dismissal)

This provision supplies the classification of the respondents' acts as grave offenses and the penalty prescribed for a first offense.

Section 9 of the same Rule states what the penalty of dismissal carries with it:

The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and the disqualification from re-employment in the government service.

This provision defines the accessory consequences that the Court weighed when it calibrated the penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that both respondents were dishonest. The act of making a false statement in the attendance logbook renders an employee liable for dishonesty and falsification, and any willful concealment of fact in the logbook constitutes mental dishonesty amounting to misconduct. The Court defined dishonesty as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud, and stressed that a court employee, as a public servant, must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity. Jotic's claim that she was rattled deserved scant consideration, because the presence of the investigating team should naturally have led her to enter the correct time. Espinosa's malfunctioning watch was an absurd and lame excuse, since the team itself arrived around 8:05 a.m. and found the Office of the Clerk of Court still closed. The Court also noted that both were consistently punctual except on the day of the surprise inspection, which cast doubt on their entries.

On the second issue, the Court agreed that dishonesty and falsification of public documents are grave offenses punishable by dismissal even for a first offense, and that its unwavering policy has been to impose the maximum administrative penalty for falsification of public documents. It quoted its ruling in Mirano versus Saavedra that public service requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline, and that the conduct of everyone connected with the dispensation of justice must be above suspicion. Nevertheless, considering Jotic's service of more than fifteen years and Espinosa's service of more than twenty one years, and that this was their first offense, the Court deemed it proper to reduce the recommended penalties.

On the third issue, the Court found that the irregularities in timekeeping occurred because of a deficiency on the part of the Branch Clerk of Court in supervising the personnel of her branch, and ordered her to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against her.

Doctrine

• The making of a false statement in an attendance logbook renders an employee liable for dishonesty and falsification, and any willful concealment of fact in the logbook constitutes mental dishonesty amounting to misconduct.
• Dishonesty is a grave offense under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order 292, punishable by dismissal even for a first offense, and dismissal carries cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from re-employment in the government service.
• The conduct of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary.
• Long service and a first offense may justify reducing the penalty recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator.

Disposition

The Court found both Jotic and Espinosa guilty of dishonesty and suspended each of them for ten months without pay and other benefits, with a stern warning, and ordered the Branch Clerk of Court to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against her.

Remember This

Memorize the line that any willful concealment of fact in the attendance logbook is mental dishonesty amounting to misconduct, a grave offense punishable by dismissal even on a first offense. Examiners use this case to test the definition of dishonesty in attendance records and the mitigating effect of long service and a first offense on the penalty.