MARITESS M. YAMBA, COMPLAINANT, VS. LUZVIMINDA G. HERNANDEZ, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BUENAVISTA, AGUSAN DEL NORTE, RESPONDENT.

Yamba versus Hernandez

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Maritess Yamba, a court stenographer of the Municipal Trial Court of Buenavista, Agusan del Norte, charged Luzviminda Hernandez, the Clerk of Court II of the same court, with gross misconduct, serious dishonesty, and falsification of official documents. The complainant alleged that the respondent used her name and identity to attend a convention meant only for court stenographers, claimed reimbursement from the local government for expenses she never lawfully incurred, and falsified her daily time record to make it appear that she was at work when she was in fact in another city. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to clarify that a single course of conduct may give rise to several distinct administrative offenses, and to apply the new Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel, including its rules on penalties in lieu of dismissal when the respondent has already retired.

Procedural History

The case began as a verified complaint filed with the Supreme Court against a court employee, and it was referred to the Judicial Integrity Board. The Office of the Executive Director of the Judicial Integrity Board submitted an amended report and recommendation, which the Judicial Integrity Board adopted in full. The Supreme Court then issued a resolution noting the report and the Board's resolution and re-docketing the matter as a regular administrative case. The Court, sitting en banc, decided the case on the merits, adopting the findings of fact but modifying the recommendations.

Facts

Maritess Yamba was authorized by the Office of the Court Administrator to attend the convention of the Court Stenographers Association of the Philippines in Dipolog City from April 26 to 28, 2023, and she and other stenographers had secured assistance from the local government of Buenavista for transportation, registration, and per diem. On April 24, 2023, she decided not to proceed with the trip. Upon hearing this, Luzviminda Hernandez expressed her intention to travel to Dipolog City, saying she would attend a meeting of the First Level Clerks of Court Association of the Philippines, and she eventually joined two branch stenographers on the trip.

On the opening day of the convention, the complainant received a call asking whether she would allow the respondent to attend the event using her name, and she refused. Later, a colleague asked her to sign a Certificate of Travel Completed, an Itinerary of Travel, and an Obligation Request in support of the respondent's reimbursement claims; she set the documents aside to seek clarification, and when she returned they were gone. On May 8, 2023, she verified with the local government and found that a Certificate of Attendance and an Acknowledgement Receipt for 3,400 pesos as payment for the registration fee had been issued under her name.

On May 18, 2023, the respondent submitted her monthly daily time record and application for leave for April 2023, and the complainant found that entries had been falsified to make it appear that the respondent reported for work from April 26 to 28, even though photographs posted on a Facebook account showed her in Dipolog City on those dates. On May 30, 2023, the local government released a check for 11,448 pesos payable to the complainant, but the respondent received it. In her answer, the respondent denied the allegations, claimed the complaint was filed out of hatred and revenge, admitted using the complainant's name on the first day of the convention, denied forging any signature, and maintained that her trip was official business.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for serious dishonesty.
• Whether or not the same acts likewise constitute falsification of official documents.
• Whether or not the same acts likewise constitute gross misconduct.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal may still be imposed, and if not, what penalty should be meted in lieu of dismissal.

Applicable Provisions

Canon V, Section 26 of the 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel governs multiple offenses, and it bears on the case because the Court uses it to treat the respondent's acts as several distinct offenses:

Under Canon V, Section 26 of the 2025 CCACOP, a respondent can be found liable for more than one (1) offense for a single act or omission, as well as for multiple offenses arising from separate acts or omissions in a single administrative proceeding.

Canon V, Section 24 of the same Code lists the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, and it bears on the case because the Court uses it to reject the mitigating circumstance of length of service:

SECTION 24. Modifying Circumstances.— (1) Mitigating circumstances: (a) First offense; (b) Length of service of, at least, 10 years with no previous disciplinary case where respondent was meted with an administrative penalty; (c) Exemplary performance; (d) Humanitarian considerations; (e) Unconditional admission of guilt and public demonstration of remorse; and (f) Other analogous circumstances. (2) Aggravating Circumstances: (a) Finding of previous administrative liability where a penalty has been imposed, regardless of nature and/or gravity; (b) Length of service facilitated the commission of the offense; (c) Employment of fraudulent means to conceal the offense; (d) Arrogance, belligerent attitude of the respondent, or lack of remorse; and (e) Other analogous circumstances.

Canon V, Section 25 of the same Code governs the manner of imposition of penalty, and it bears on the case because the presence of one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance fixes the range of the fine:

SECTION 25. Manner of Imposition of penalty. — If one or more aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present, the Supreme Court may impose the penalty of suspension or fine, for a period or amount not exceeding double of the maximum prescribed under this [Rule]. If one or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the Supreme Court may impose the penalties of suspension or fine, for a period or amount not less than half of the minimum prescribed under this [Rule]. If there are both aggravating and mitigating circumstances present, the Supreme Court may offset each other. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Supreme Court may impose the next higher or lower penalty against the respondent subject to its appreciation of the number and gravity of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances present.

Canon V, Section 23 of the same Code provides for the penalty in lieu of dismissal, and it bears on the case because the respondent had already compulsorily retired:

If the respondent is found liable for an offense which merits the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service but the same can no longer be imposed due to the respondent's supervening resignation, retirement, or other modes of separation from service except for death, the respondent may be meted with the following penalties in lieu of dismissal: (a) Forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Supreme Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; and/or (b) Fine, as applicable under this Canon.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent is liable for serious dishonesty. The Court defined dishonesty as the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive, or betray, or an intent to violate the truth. Dishonesty becomes serious when qualified by any of the enumerated circumstances, including where the respondent employed fraud or falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to employment, and where the dishonest act caused grave prejudice to the government. The Court found that the respondent falsified her daily time record, deliberately used the complainant's identity at the convention, caused the issuance of a Certificate of Attendance and an Acknowledgement Receipt under the complainant's name, received a check payable to the complainant, and signed documents for the complainant without authority.

On the second issue, the Court held that the same acts constitute falsification of official documents, which as an administrative offense pertains to knowingly making false statements in official or public documents. The Court noted that falsification of an official document and dishonesty are distinct offenses but may arise from a single act, and it found that the respondent's daily time record and the local government attendance and reimbursement papers she prepared, signed, and used on behalf of the complainant without authority were falsified.

On the third issue, the Court held that the respondent is likewise liable for gross misconduct. Misconduct is an intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior connected with the performance of official functions, and it becomes gross when corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule is manifest. The Court found that the respondent's repeated acts of falsification and misrepresentation were deliberate and reflected a persistent disregard for proper procedures.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the appropriate penalty would be dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service. The Court rejected the mitigating circumstance of length of service because the rule expressly requires that the respondent have no prior disciplinary record where an administrative penalty was imposed, and the respondent had previously been found guilty of insubordination and suspended. With one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the fine could reach double the maximum prescribed. However, since the respondent had already compulsorily retired, dismissal was no longer feasible, and the Court imposed forfeiture of her entire retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, instead of a fine.

Doctrine

A single act or a single course of conduct may give rise to more than one administrative offense, and the respondent may be held liable for all of them in a single administrative proceeding. Falsification of a daily time record constitutes serious dishonesty, and the same act may also constitute falsification of official documents and gross misconduct. Length of service is a mitigating circumstance only where the respondent has no previous disciplinary case in which an administrative penalty was imposed. Where the respondent has already retired, the penalty of dismissal may be replaced by forfeiture of benefits, except accrued leave credits, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of serious dishonesty, falsification of official documents, and gross misconduct, and ordered the forfeiture of her entire retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and her disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that falsification of a daily time record is serious dishonesty, and the same act may also be falsification of official documents and gross misconduct. Examiners like to use this case to test the rule on multiple offenses arising from separate acts and the rule on penalties in lieu of dismissal after retirement.