RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF MS. PACIENCIA E. AJANAB, COURT STENOGRAPHER I, MCTC, MALUSO, BASILAN.

Re: Dropping from the Rolls of Ms. Paciencia E. Ajanab

The Case

This is an administrative matter brought by the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Maluso, Basilan against Mrs. Paciencia E. Ajanab, a Court Stenographer I in that same court. The judge asked the Supreme Court to drop her from the rolls because she had obtained unsatisfactory performance ratings. It is not a disciplinary case. It is a case about competence, and it matters because it shows the Court applying the rule that two consecutive unsatisfactory ratings, after due notice, are enough to separate a court employee from the service, and that such separation is non-disciplinary in nature.

Procedural History

The matter began in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Maluso, Basilan, where the Presiding Judge, through a letter dated 8 August 2008, requested that Mrs. Ajanab be dropped from the rolls for unsatisfactory performance ratings. The records were then referred to the Office of the Court Administrator, which submitted its Report dated 11 November 2008. The Office of the Court Administrator found that the documentary requirements for dropping an employee from the rolls had been met and recommended that Mrs. Ajanab be dropped from the rolls for obtaining two consecutive unsatisfactory ratings and that her position be declared vacant. The matter then came before the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court resolved it in a decision promulgated in February 2009.

Facts

During a personnel meeting on 20 November 2007, Judge Alano called Mrs. Ajanab's attention to the disarray of the files, both soft and hard, relating to the election cases assigned to her. She explained that she was computer illiterate and asked that she be allowed to use the typewriter instead. Her caseload was then assigned to the two other stenographers in the court to avoid further delay in the flow of cases. Despite this and constant reminders, her performance did not improve, and she received an unsatisfactory performance rating for the semester covering July to December 2007.

On 15 January 2008, Judge Alano sent her a notice of unsatisfactory performance rating, explaining the basis for the rating and warning her that her failure to improve within the remaining period of the semester would warrant her separation from the service. Mrs. Ajanab did not submit any written explanation or objections. Her performance deteriorated even though she had been allowed to handle a lesser caseload. According to Judge Alano, in order to decide two criminal cases he had to rely on his own notes taken during the proceedings, because the transcript of stenographic notes was inaccurate and the transcription had been made by some other person. The font was different from the official font, and the page numbers had been tampered with, rendering the integrity of the transcript dubious. She was again given an unsatisfactory rating for the semester covering January to June 2008, and Judge Alano gave her a second notice, in which he averred that he had done her job for her for the past four years but to no avail. He recommended her separation from the service.

In a letter dated 7 August 2008, Mrs. Ajanab admitted her limited knowledge of computer encoding, describing herself as one of the old timers who was left behind by the rapid development of technology in the workplace. She explained that she transcribed her stenographic notes with the aid of her son using their personal computer at home, which explained the type of font used and why her output was not found in the office database. She claimed that she could not be expected to be well versed with the computer overnight, as she had not been given an ample chance to learn and no program on computer literacy had been offered by the Supreme Court. She pleaded for indulgence and benevolence and asked to be transferred to another position with duties that do not require the use of the computer.

Issues

• Whether or not Mrs. Ajanab may be dropped from the rolls for obtaining two consecutive unsatisfactory performance ratings.
• Whether or not the documentary requirements for dropping an employee from the rolls for unsatisfactory performance were complied with.
• Whether or not the separation from the service of Mrs. Ajanab, being non-disciplinary in nature, results in the forfeiture of her benefits or disqualifies her from reemployment in the government.

Applicable Provisions

The Office of the Court Administrator relied on Section 2, paragraph 2.2, items a and b, of Rule XII of the Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Personnel Action, which provides:

An official or employee who is given two (2) consecutive "Unsatisfactory" ratings or who for one evaluation period is rated "Poor" in performance may be dropped from the rolls after due notice.

This is the very rule that authorizes the dropping of Mrs. Ajanab from the rolls, since she received two consecutive unsatisfactory ratings after due notice.

The same Section 2, paragraph 2.6, of Rule XII provides:

Dropping from the rolls for unsatisfactory or poor performance is non-disciplinary in nature and shall not result in the forfeiture of any benefits on the part of the official or employee nor in disqualifying him from reemployment in the government.

This provision explains why the Court, while dropping Mrs. Ajanab from the rolls, preserved her benefits and her eligibility for reemployment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Mrs. Ajanab may be dropped from the rolls. Although the Court empathized with her plight, it was compelled to give weighty consideration to the demands of public service. Court personnel should be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency, and must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence. To keep an employee found to be incompetent and grossly inefficient in the performance of her work would be a great disservice to the public.

On the second issue, the Court found that the documentary requirements had been met. The notices dated 15 January 2008 and 30 July 2008 were issued by the Presiding Judge within the 30-day period from the end of every semester, indicating that Mrs. Ajanab had incurred unsatisfactory performance. The notices contained sufficient information: first, that she had obtained unsatisfactory ratings for two consecutive semesters, July to December 2007 and January to June 2008; second, a warning that she may be separated from the service; and third, an opportunity for her to file a comment within a reasonable period from receipt of the notice.

On the third issue, the Court held that her separation from the service, being non-disciplinary in nature, shall not result in the forfeiture of any benefits she may be entitled to under existing laws, nor in disqualifying her from reemployment in the government.

Doctrine

An official or employee who is given two consecutive unsatisfactory ratings, or who for one evaluation period is rated poor in performance, may be dropped from the rolls after due notice. The notice must inform the employee of the unsatisfactory performance for the semester, must warn that a succeeding unsatisfactory performance shall warrant separation from the service, and must contain sufficient information to enable the employee to prepare an explanation. The notice must be given not later than 30 days from the end of the semester. Dropping from the rolls for unsatisfactory or poor performance is non-disciplinary in nature. It does not result in the forfeiture of any benefits, and it does not disqualify the employee from reemployment in the government. Court personnel must be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency, and must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence.

Disposition

The Court approved the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, dropped Paciencia E. Ajanab from the rolls, and declared her position vacant, without forfeiture of her benefits and without disqualifying her from reemployment in the government.

Remember This

Remember the line that dropping from the rolls for unsatisfactory performance is non-disciplinary in nature and carries no forfeiture of benefits and no disqualification from reemployment. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between a disciplinary penalty and a non-disciplinary dropping from the rolls, and the notice requirements under the Omnibus Rules.