A.M. No. P-93-960. November 18, 2002
TERESITA ROMERO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ENRIQUETA CASTELLANO, COURT STENOGRAPHER, RESPONDENT.
Per Curiam:
respondent Enriqueta Castellano, Court Stenographer of Branch 41, Regional
Trial Court, Bacolod City, for grave dishonesty and gross misconduct.
The facts of the case are succinctly summarized by investigating
judge, then Executive judge, and, former Deputy Court Administrator, Bernardo
T. Ponferrada in his Report[2] dated
31 October 1995:
“The complainant went on official leave of absence beginning
September 23, 1991 up to April 23, 1993. This official leave was on the basis
of her accumulated leave credits as follows:
Vacation Leave – 41
daysSick Leave – 93 days
(As of August 31, 1991)
as attested to by Atty. Adelaida
Cabe-Baumann, Director IV of the Office of Administrative Services. Upon the
exhaustion of her leave credits with pay, the complainant commenced to be on
official leave of absence without pay on April 6, 1992.
“Before going on her leave of absence, the complainant had already
prepared beforehand her duly accomplished Daily Time Records for the vacation
leave period ‘with pay’ and her leave applications for the period ‘without
pay.’ These she requested her then very
dear friend, Enriqueta V. Castellano (herein respondent) to submit as they
individually fall at the end of every month.
“Upon reporting back for duty on April 26, 1993, the complainant
applied for GSIS Salary/Policy Loan. But considering that she has been on ‘indefinite leave without pay’ she
inquired with the Leave Section of the Supreme Court as to how much she had to
pay for her unpaid premiums so that she can apply for a loan. She was surprised, however, to know that per
the records of the Leave Section there never was a time that she has ever been
on leave for the above period. As a
matter of fact, her salaries for the same period were all released. Moreover, the complainant was even more
surprised to receive her pay slips for the period September 1991 up to February
1992 when she was supposed to have been on leave.
“Probing deeper into the matter, the complainant found out from
Norberto Montalbo (Utility Worker II assigned to the General Services Unit of
the Supreme Court), a mutual friend of hers and the respondent, that sometime
in 1992 he was requested by the respondent to get the salary checks of the
complainant. As a matter of fact, he
was given by the respondent a Special Power of Attorney purportedly signed by
the complainant designating him as her attorney-in-fact. And by virtue thereto, Mr. Montalbo was able
to get complainant’s salary checks from July 1992 to December 1992 and kept
sending them to the respondent. Considering that the first SPA expired by
December 1992, the respondent sent him a second SPA so that he might be able to
get the subsequent checks of the complainant for January 1993 to April 1993.
Moreover he was able to get the other checks of the complainant such as bonus,
JDF, fringe benefits, clothing allowance, additional compensation allowance.
“All along Norberto Montalbo was not aware that the SPAs sent to
him by the respondent were forgeries. It was only until after the complainant told him that she never sent him
any SPA did he come to know the perfidious scheme perpetrated by the
respondent. When he confronted the
respondent about the matter sometime in July 1993, the latter only cried.
“It then became clear to the complainant that instead of sending
the aforementioned DTRs the respondent falsified a different set of DTRs
covering the same period to make it appear that the complainant reported for
duty, sent the same to the Supreme Court and received the salary checks of the
latter and converted the same for her (respondent) own benefit.
“When confronted about the matter on May 26, 1993, the respondent
could not give an explanation but merely cried. On June 9, 1993, she however sent a letter addressed to Atty.
Corazon P. Romero, Clerk of Court V of RTC Branch 41, admitting having
committed all the acts complained of and taking full responsibility thereof.
The matter was eventually brought to the attention of Presiding Judge Lolita
Contreras-Besana who directed the complainant to file the appropriate complaint
against the respondent.”
After conducting hearings on the matter, investigating judge
Ponferrada recommended respondent’s dismissal on the ground of gross dishonesty
and grave misconduct, both grave offenses punishable by dismissal under Rule
XIV, Section 23, Omnibus Rules Implementing Executive Order 292.[3]
In her memorandum to the Court dated 8 May 2002, Deputy Court
Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño also recommended the dismissal of the
respondent.
While the matter was pending before the Office of the Court
Administrator, respondent was dropped from the service[4]
effective 1 March 1999 for absence without official leave (AWOL) for more than
one year. However, as pointed out by
Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño in her memorandum, being dropped
from the service as a mode of separation is non-disciplinary in nature and does
not result in neither the forfeiture of any benefits nor the disqualification
from re-employment in the government. Thus, the culpability of respondent for grave dishonesty and gross
misconduct still has to be determined inasmuch as, if found guilty, she stands
to be penalized with dismissal and its attendant consequences of cancellation of
eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and
disqualification from re-employment in the government service, without
prejudice to the criminal or civil liability that may be imposed.[5]
We agree with the recommendations of both the investigating judge
and deputy court administrator. Based on the records of the case, we find
respondent guilty of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct which warrant her
dismissal from the service. The
testimonies[6]
of complainant and Mr. Montalbo establishing how respondent facilitated her
misdeed, the letter[7]
of respondent to Atty. Corazon P. Romero, Clerk of Court V, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 41, admitting her misconduct, and respondent’s numerous motions
for postponement and eventual failure to present evidence[8] lead
to no other conclusion than that respondent is indeed guilty of the charge
against her. Respondent’s acts of
appropriating for her benefit complainant’s salaries by falsifying
complainant’s daily time records and special power of attorney constitute gross
dishonesty and grave misconduct. She
should be disqualified from the judiciary whose employees are expected to
possess integrity, uprightness, and honesty.[9]
This Court has ruled time and again that, by the very nature of
their tasks and responsibilities, all those involved in the administration of
justice, from the highest official to the lowliest clerk, must faithfully
adhere to, hold inviolate and invigorate the principle solemnly enshrined in
Section 1 of Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution that “public office
is a public trust. All public officers
and employees must at all times be accountable to the people; serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency; act with patriotism
and justice; and lead modest lives.” The Court condemns any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those
involved in the administration of justice which will violate the norm of public
accountability and will diminish or tend to diminish the faith of the people in
the judiciary.[10]
Respondent’s betrayal of the trust and confidence reposed in her by complainant
who was her very dear friend indicates a serious character flaw which makes her
unfit to serve the judiciary. As keenly observed by the investigating judge:
“[Respondent] miserably failed to keep up
the strictest standards of conduct required of court personnel who, upon
assumption (of) duty, must have to live up to the demands of honesty and
integrity not only in public service but also in the conduct of their public
lives as well.”[11]
We also agree with the recommendation that complainant herself
should also be severely reprimanded for her failure to strictly observe the
administrative rules and procedures in filing an application for leave of
absence. We agree with the findings of
the investigating judge, quoted as follows:[12]
“While it may appear true that respondent Castellano, alone, stands
to bear the brunt of the penalties for her misdeeds, yet, the investigator finds
it in point to look into the possible administrative responsibility of the
complainant.
“As already discussed, she did not report for work for a
considerable length of time under the belief that her applications for leave
were duly accomplished and proper. She was supposed to be on leave from the
last portion of September 1991 to December 1992 (Exhs. ‘B’ to ‘B-11’); then,
from January 1993 to April 25, 1993. But this matter never officially reached the Supreme Court since
according to the complainant, the respondent whom she commissioned to
accomplish the papers did not send her applications for leave and instead, she
sent the Supreme Court falsified Daily Time Records purportedly signed by the
complainant, obviously, intended to make it appear that Teresita Romero
performed her duties during those periods, when in truth, she did not – paving
the way for the respondent to regularly receive the salary checks and other
fringe benefits due Romero.
“The investigator would like to believe, however, that the
complainant took things for granted and was careless in keeping track of her
personal responsibility to see to it that official records pertinent to her
official duties were duly accomplished and complied with. She also appear to have been remiss in the performance
of her responsibilities.
“Wittingly or unwittingly, the complainant benefited from the
misconduct of the respondent. Although it appears that Teresita Romero was
partly deprived of her salaries, bonus, and other fringe benefits,
nevertheless, her leave credits until now remain intact. It does not appear that the complainant made
attempts to rectify the error with the Supreme Court even until now.
“In other words, Teresita Romero, in effect, tolerated it and still
continues to tolerate the accreditation of her leave credits which she does not
deserve to earn under the circumstances. This is clearly disadvantageous to public service. She should, therefore, be reprimanded or
admonished for enjoying a privilege which she is aware she does not deserve and
in violation of existing administrative procedures. This is in contravention of
the provisions of Section 22(c) on light offenses, mandated by Rule XII, Civil
Service Implementing Rules (1993).”
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves that:
1. respondent Enriqueta V. Castellano, Court Stenographer, Branch
41, Regional Trial Court, Bacolod City, be DISMISSED from the service, with
forfeiture of retirement benefits, and disqualification from re-employment in
any government office, including government-owned and controlled corporations;
2. complainant Teresita C. Romero, Court Interpreter, Branch 41,
Regional Trial Court, Bacolod City, be SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for her failure to
strictly observe the administrative rules and procedures in filing her
application for leave of absence and WARNED that a repetition of the same act
or omission will be dealt with more severely;
3. the Chief Administrative Officer, Office of the Administrative
Services, Supreme Court, Manila be DIRECTED to apply the earned leave credits
of complainant (as of 31 August 1991) of forty-one (41) vacation and
ninety-three (93) sick leave credits to her leave of absence from September
1991 to April 1993 and that she be declared to be on leave without pay during
the period of her absence without any earned leave credits; and
4. the Secretary of Justice be FURNISHED a copy of this decision
for the possible criminal prosecution of respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Corona,
Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J., on leave.
[1]
By investigating judge, then Executive Judge, and, former Deputy Court
Administrator, Bernardo T. Ponferrada.
[2]
Rollo, p. 231-234.
[3]
Rule XIV, Sec. 23.
xxx xxx xxx
The following are grave offenses with corresponding
penalties:
(a) Dishonesty
1st Offense – Dismissal
xxx
xxx
xxx
(b) Grave
Misconduct
1st Offense – Dismissal
xxx
xxx
xxx
[4]
Pursuant to an en banc Resolution dated 19 September 1995.
[5]
Rule XIV, Section 9, Omnibus Rules Implementing E.O. 292 (1991).
[6]
TSN, December 13, 1993, pp. 1-11; TSN July 26, 1994, pp. 3-19.
[7]
Exhibit “H.”
[8]
Rollo, p. 145.
[9]
Pizarro vs. Villegas,
345 SCRA 42, 48 (2000).
[10]
In Re: Report of the Financial
Audit Conducted on the Accounts of Zenaida Garcia, MTC, Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo,
A.M. No. 97-1-03, 303 SCRA 142, 147 (1999).
[11]
Rollo, p. 238.
[12]
Rollo, pp. 238-239.