CONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. LARIZZA PAGUIO-BACANI, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MEYCAUAYAN, …

Concerned Employees of the Municipal Trial Court of Meycauayan versus Paguio-Bacani

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by concerned employees of the Municipal Trial Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan, against their own Branch Clerk of Court, Larizza Paguio-Bacani. Through an anonymous letter complaint addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator, they alleged that she falsified her attendance and leave records and that her staff signed the attendance logbook for her whenever she was absent. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the two recurring charges against court personnel who travel abroad: leaving the country without the required travel authority, and falsifying daily time records to conceal the absence. It is a working illustration of how the Court classifies and penalizes these offenses under the civil service rules.

Procedural History

The complaint was an anonymous letter dated September 7, 2005, sent to the Office of the Court Administrator. The Leave Division of the Office of Administrative Services issued a certification on the respondent's attendance record, and the Legal Office recommended that the complaint be docketed for preliminary investigation. The Office of the Court Administrator then required the respondent to comment, which she did. In its report of July 3, 2006, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter, that the respondent be found guilty of violating office rules, and that the falsification charge be referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, for investigation.

The Supreme Court adopted that recommendation by resolution dated August 2, 2006, re-docketing the complaint as a regular administrative matter and referring it to the Executive Judge for investigation, report, and recommendation. After hearings at which the complainants failed to appear despite notice, the Executive Judge submitted a final report dated August 31, 2007, recommending dismissal for insufficiency of evidence. The Court then referred the matter back to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. In its memorandum dated January 3, 2008, the Office of the Court Administrator found the respondent liable for violation of reasonable office rules and for dishonesty, and recommended a one-year suspension without pay. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court in this decision promulgated on July 30, 2009.

Facts

The Bureau of Immigration and Deportation issued a travel information document showing that a Larizza Paguio traveled abroad on four dates: May 19, 1999; June 29, 2003; December 12, 2003; and February 9, 2005. When asked to explain, the respondent admitted all four entries were true. She said she went to the United States in February 2005 because her husband needed an aortic valve operation and her consent was required, and that she left without the required clearance and authority to travel because of the urgency, though she filed an application for leave and designated an officer in charge. For May 1999, she went to Hong Kong on what began as a free slot in a package tour for their parish priest, and she filed a leave application but no travel authority. For December 2003, she claimed she had obtained a travel authority but lost her copy. For June 2003, she said a ticket to the United States arrived as a surprise gift from her husband only two days before the flight, so she had no time to secure a travel authority, though she filed for leave.

The Leave Division certified that, on its records, the respondent applied for enrollment leave on May 19, 1999; rendered service on June 29, 2003 and on December 12, 2003; and had a leave application for February 8 to 24, 2005 that did not specify the type of leave. The respondent insisted that June 29, 2003 was a Sunday and a non-working day, and that she was on leave on December 12, 2003, producing a daily time record and an attendance logbook signed by her presiding judge.

The investigating Executive Judge found that June 29, 2003 was indeed a Sunday, that the daily time record showed the respondent on leave on December 12, 2003, and that no evidence was presented that her staff signed the logbook for her. She recommended dismissal of the complaint. The Office of the Court Administrator disagreed. It noted that the daily time record the respondent presented was not the same, nor a certified copy of, the record she submitted to the Office of the Administrative Services, and that she could not have been at her workstation and on vacation abroad at the same time. It found her liable for violation of office rules and for dishonesty, and recommended one year of suspension without pay.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for leaving the country without the prior travel authority required by the circulars of the Court.
• Whether or not the respondent is liable for dishonesty through falsification of her attendance and leave records.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal for dishonesty should be reduced in view of mitigating circumstances.

Applicable Provisions

OCA Circular No. 49-2003, on vacation leave to be spent abroad, provides:

Pursuant to the resolution in A.M. No. 99-12-08-SC dated 6 November 2000, all foreign travels of judges and court personnel, regardless of the number of days, must be with prior permission from the Supreme Court through the Chief Justice and the Chairmen of the Divisions. Judges and court personnel who wish to travel abroad must secure a travel authority from the Office of the Court Administrator.

This is the rule the respondent violated three times, and it supplies the first ground of liability.

Section 4 of Rule XVII of the Omnibus Rules on Leave provides:

Falsification or irregularities in the keeping of time records will render the guilty officer or employee administratively liable without prejudice to criminal prosecution as the circumstances warrant.

This is the provision that makes the falsification of time records itself an administrative offense.

Section 52 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies offenses, and its paragraph A provides:

The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties: 1. Dishonesty - 1st Offense - Dismissal.

This fixes dismissal as the penalty for dishonesty, which the Court then tempered by mitigating circumstances.

The same Section 52, paragraph C, classifies light offenses and provides:

3. Violation of reasonable office rules and regulations. 1st Offense - Reprimand. 2nd Offense - Suspension 1-30 days. 3rd Offense - Dismissal.

This is the classification of the travel authority violation, a light offense on its own.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the respondent liable for violation of reasonable office rules. She admitted that on three of the four travel dates she left the country without securing a travel authority, in violation of the circular. The Court rejected her explanations of urgency and good faith, stressing that she committed the prohibited act more than once, which reflected a wanton disregard of the circular. As Branch Clerk of Court, she was reminded that a public office is a public trust and that every employee of the judiciary must be an example of integrity and proper behavior.

On the second issue, the Court found her liable for dishonesty through falsification of her daily time records. The complainants could not specify the dates, but the investigation revealed a discrepancy between the certification of the Leave Division, which showed she rendered service on June 29 and December 12, 2003, and the daily time record she submitted, which showed her on leave. The Court held that the discrepancy raised a presumption that she falsified her records, and the burden to overcome that presumption fell on her. She merely denied the certification without explaining how the Leave Division could have issued information different from her own records, when it was her office that supplied those records. The Court gave greater weight to the records of the Leave Division, because the act of certifying attendance is an official duty performed with regularity. It also noted that she could not show that the daily time record she presented was the same one submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator.

On the third issue, the Court held that although dishonesty is punishable by dismissal, that extreme penalty could not be inflicted where mitigating circumstances existed. The respondent had served as Branch Clerk of Court for about ten years, and this was her first administrative complaint. The Court thus adopted the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator and imposed suspension rather than dismissal.

Doctrine

First, all foreign travels of judges and court personnel, regardless of the number of days, require prior permission from the Supreme Court through the Chief Justice and the Chairmen of the Divisions, and a travel authority from the Office of the Court Administrator. Leaving the country without it is a violation of reasonable office rules and regulations, a light offense under the civil service rules.

Second, falsification of daily time records to cover up absenteeism constitutes dishonesty, a grave offense punishable by dismissal on first offense. A discrepancy between the attendance records certified by the Leave Division and the daily time record submitted by the employee raises a presumption of falsification, and the burden shifts to the employee to overcome it. Greater weight is given to the certification of the Leave Division, because it is an official duty performed with regularity.

Third, while dishonesty carries dismissal, the Court may reduce the penalty where mitigating circumstances exist, such as long service and the absence of any prior administrative complaint.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of dishonesty through falsification of her daily time records and of leaving the country without the requisite travel authority, and suspended her from the service for one year without pay, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a discrepancy between the Leave Division certification and the employee's own daily time record raises a presumption of falsification that the employee must overcome, and falsification of time records is dishonesty. Examiners use this case for the travel authority requirement for court personnel and for the rule that dishonesty, though punishable by dismissal, may be mitigated by long service and a first offense.