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 filed by Maritess Yamba, a court stenographer of the Municipal Trial Court of Buenavista, Agusan del Norte, against Luzviminda Hernandez, the Clerk of Court II of the same court. Maritess accused Luzviminda of gross misconduct, serious dishonesty, and falsification of official documents arising from Luzviminda's attendance at a stenographers' convention in Dipolog City under Maritess's name, her claims for reimbursement from the local government, and her falsified daily time records. The case matters because the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, clarifies that a single course of conduct may give rise to several distinct administrative offenses, and it applies the new 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel to a pending case, including the rule on penalties in lieu of dismissal where the respondent has already retired.

Procedural History

The case began as a verified Complaint-Affidavit filed with the Supreme Court by Maritess Yamba against Luzviminda Hernandez. The Office of the Executive Director of the Judicial Integrity Board investigated and submitted an Amended Report and Recommendation dated July 1, 2025, recommending that Luzviminda be charged with serious dishonesty and fined 101,000 pesos, to be deducted from her benefits, since she had compulsorily retired on October 6, 2024. The Judicial Integrity Board adopted the report in full. The Supreme Court then issued a Resolution noting the report and re-docketing the matter as a regular administrative case. The Court ultimately adopted the findings of fact but modified the recommendations, and decided the case en banc.

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. She and other stenographers secured assistance from the local government unit of Buenavista for transportation, registration fees, and per diem. On April 24, 2023, Maritess decided not to proceed with the trip. Upon learning this, Luzviminda 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, Maritess received a call asking whether she would allow Luzviminda to attend the event using her name. Maritess refused and insisted that Luzviminda use her own name. Later, a colleague asked Maritess to sign a Certificate of Travel Completed, an Itinerary of Travel, and an Obligation Request to support Luzviminda's reimbursement claims. Maritess set the documents aside to seek clarification, and when she returned, the documents were gone. Maritess then verified with the local government unit and discovered that a Certificate of Attendance and an Acknowledgement Receipt for 3,400 pesos as registration fee had been issued under her name.

On May 18, 2023, Luzviminda submitted her Monthly Report of Daily Time Record for April 2023, showing that she reported for work from April 26 to 28, even though photographs posted on a Facebook account showed she was in Dipolog City on those dates. On May 30, 2023, the local government unit released a check for 11,448 pesos payable to Maritess, but Luzviminda received it. In her defense, Luzviminda claimed the complaint was filed out of hatred and revenge. She admitted using Maritess's name on the first day of the convention, denied forging any signature, said she merely signed "for" Maritess, denied receiving any reimbursement, and maintained that her trip was official business reflected in her time records.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent's acts of substituting for the complainant at the convention, seeking reimbursement, and making false entries in her daily time record constitute a single offense of serious dishonesty or several distinct administrative offenses.
• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for serious dishonesty.
• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for falsification of official documents.
• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for gross misconduct.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal may 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 provides:

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.

This provision allows the Court to hold the respondent liable for serious dishonesty, falsification of official documents, and gross misconduct arising from the same course of conduct.

Canon V, Section 24 of the same Code provides:

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.

This provision governs whether the respondent's length of service may be counted as a mitigating circumstance, which turns on whether she had a prior disciplinary record.

Canon V, Section 25 of the same Code provides:

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.

This provision fixes the range of the fine where only an aggravating circumstance is present.

Canon V, Section 23 of the same Code provides:

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.

This provision supplies the penalty in lieu of dismissal, since the respondent had already compulsorily retired.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent's acts constitute several distinct administrative offenses, not a single offense. It relied on Canon V, Section 26, which allows a respondent to be found liable for more than one offense for a single act or omission, as well as for multiple offenses arising from separate acts or omissions in a single administrative proceeding. Accordingly, the respondent was charged not only with serious dishonesty but also with falsification of official documents and gross misconduct.

On the second issue, the Court held the respondent liable for serious dishonesty. It 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 their employment, and where the dishonest act caused grave prejudice to the government. The Court found that the respondent falsified her daily time record for April 2023, used the complainant's identity at the convention, caused the issuance of a Certificate of Attendance and an Acknowledgement Receipt for 3,400 pesos under the complainant's name, received a check for 11,448 pesos payable to the complainant, and signed documents "for" the complainant without authority. These acts fell squarely within the qualifying circumstances of serious dishonesty.

On the third issue, the Court held the respondent liable for falsification of official documents, which it described as knowingly making false statements in official or public documents. It cited its rulings in Brooks, Torres, and Kasilag, where falsification of daily time records gave rise to both falsification and dishonesty. The Court noted that if the respondent had intended to truthfully reflect her attendance at the convention, she would have indicated it as official business in her time record and attached the corresponding circular, but she could not do so because her attendance was not official business.

On the fourth issue, the Court held the respondent 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 rules is manifest. The Court found that the respondent's repeated acts of falsification and misrepresentation were deliberate, not mere errors of judgment, and reflected a persistent disregard for proper procedures.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the appropriate penalty would be dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service. However, since the respondent had already compulsorily retired on October 6, 2024, dismissal was no longer feasible. The Court clarified that the mitigating circumstance of length of service was erroneously appreciated, because Canon V, Section 24 expressly requires that the respondent have no prior disciplinary record where an administrative penalty was imposed. The respondent had previously been found guilty of insubordination and suspended for one month and one day. Thus, only the aggravating circumstance of prior administrative liability remained, and the Court found that a fine was insufficient given the nature and gravity of the acts. Applying Canon V, Section 23, the Court imposed forfeiture of the respondent's entire retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office.

Doctrine

A single act or omission may give rise to more than one administrative offense, and multiple offenses arising from separate acts or omissions may be adjudicated in a single administrative proceeding, under Canon V, Section 26 of the 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel. Falsification of daily time records constitutes serious dishonesty, and the same acts 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, as required by Canon V, Section 24. Where the respondent has already retired, the penalty of dismissal may be replaced by forfeiture of benefits, except accrued leave credits, and disqualification from public office, under Canon V, Section 23.

Disposition

The Court found Luzviminda Hernandez 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

One course of dishonest conduct can be three offenses at once, and retirement does not erase the penalty, it only changes its form. Examiners like to use this case to test the application of the 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel, the rule on multiple offenses from a single act, and the penalty in lieu of dismissal after retirement.