SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-16-3421. January 25, 2016.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4201-P]
JUDGE LOURDES GRACE S. BARRIENTOS-SASONDONCILLO, complainant, vs. GILBERT T. INMENZO, CLERK OF COURT III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 52, CALOOCAN CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 25 January 2016 which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-16-3421 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4201-P: JUDGE LOURDES GRACE S. BARRIENTOS-SASONDONCILLO v. GILBERT T. INMENZO, CLERK OF COURT III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 52, CALOOCAN CITY]
Before us is an administrative Complaint against respondent Branch Clerk of Court III Gilbert T. Inmenzo of Branch 52, Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City. 1
In her Complaint 2 dated December 4, 2013, Judge Lourdes Grace S. Barrientos-Sasondoncillo, Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 52 and Presiding Judge of Branch 86 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, alleged that respondent violated Circular No. 62-97 3 dated October 9, 1997 by accepting 36 units of teaching load for the first semester of school year 2013-2014 and holding classes from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on weekdays, 7:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. on Saturdays, and 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Sundays. 4
Complainant notes that respondent presented an Authority to Teach for only three (3) units for said semester. 5 She explains that respondent's 36-unit teaching load "great and adversely affected the quality of work rendered by [respondent.]" 6 Complainant submitted a certified true copy of respondent's faculty load 7 from the University of Caloocan City in support of the Complaint.
In his Comment, 8 respondent admits taking 36 units of teaching load for the school year 2013-2014 and holding classes every day as appearing in the faculty load submitted by complainant. 9 He contends that none of these classes consume his office hours at the court since the classes start at 5:30 p.m. on weekdays, and there are no office hours during weekends. 10
Respondent explains that his teaching load increased due to urgent needs for instructors at the University, as well as his financial needs considering his many payables for loans, household expenses, children's education, and support for parents. 11 caITAC
Respondent adds that by taking teaching load he is "not only contributing to . . . nation building, but most importantly, discouraging corruption in the judiciary." 12 He regards teaching as an honorable profession and has no other desire but to render public service. 13
Respondent submits that his teaching commitments have not adversely affected his performance of his official duties. 14 He still reports to work as early as 7:00 every morning and completes his assignments as he "want[s] to be an instrument in the speedy disposition of cases in the City of Caloocan." 15
In any event, respondent manifests that he has stopped his teaching engagements as of October 2013. 16
Respondent begs for the magnanimity of the court, to absolve him from these charges so he may engage in teaching again in the future, strictly and faithfully complying with the rules. 17
In support of his Comment, respondent attached a joint affidavit 18 of his court co-employees attesting that respondent was never remiss in his duties. He also attached transmittals 19 of his "very satisfactory" Performance Rating for the past six (6) years and certifications 20 by former presiding judges of Branch 52 on his dedication to his post.
The Office of the Court Administrator, in its Report 21 dated June 18, 2015, recommended that the Complaint "be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter[,]" 22 and that respondent "be REPRIMANDED for violation of Circular No. 62-97 and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely by the Court." 23
It discussed that under Rule 10, Section 46 (F) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, violation of reasonable office rules and regulations falls under light offenses punishable by reprimand for first offense; a day to thirty (30) days' suspension for second offense; and dismissal from the service for third offense. 24
The sole issue for resolution is whether respondent should be held administratively liable for violation of Circular No. 62-97 dated October 9, 1997 on the Rules and Regulations on Teaching, thus:
CIRCULAR NO. 62-97 October 9, 1997
TO: ALL JUDGES AND PERSONNEL OF THE APPEALS SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS.
SUBJECT: RULES AND REGULATIONS ON TEACHING
For purposes of accomplishing the REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO TEACH for prescribed in Circular No. 50-97, dated July 18, 1997, reiterated herein below are the rules and regulations on teaching which must be observed:
1. Teaching hours shall in no case be earlier than 5:30 pm on regular working days (Monday through Friday) and 2:30 pm on Saturdays;
2. Teaching shall be limited to eight (8) hours a week, and in no case shall a judge or court personnel be allowed to teach more than two (2) hours a day on a regular working days [sic] (Monday through Friday);
3. . . . .
4. Application for permission to teach shall be subject to approval by the court, which may deny the same or grant less than eight (8) hours, depending upon the applicant's performance record.
For strict compliance. (Emphasis supplied) ICHDca
Respondent does not deny his 36-unit teaching load for the first semester of school year 2013-2014. Respondent offers explanations of addressing financial constraints while still holding very satisfactory performance ratings for his office post.
Teaching is no doubt a noble profession. This court recognizes respondent's commitment to public service and nation-building by taking post as a court employee of the judiciary and then accepting teaching load for a university.
Nevertheless, Circular No. 62-97 explicitly limits the teaching load of court personnel, such as respondent, to only eight (8) hours a week. An application for permission may even be granted for less than eight (8) hours, or denied all together, depending on the performance record of the applicant. 25 These are reasonable hours that would ensure that court personnel maintain their commitment to their post, with enough time and energy to be productive and efficient in their duties as court personnel.
Even with the Revision of Restrictions on Teaching Hours of Justices, Judges and Personnel of the Judiciary 26 that increased the allowable teaching hours to 10 hours a week, respondent still exceeded this limit with his 36-unit teaching load.
WHEREFORE, this court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. Accordingly, respondent Gilbert T. Inmenzo, Clerk of Court III, is REPRIMANDED for violation of Circular No. 62-97 and STERNLY WARNED that repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 1, Letter-complaint.
2. Id. at 1-2.
3. Id. at 5.
4. Id. at 1, Letter-complaint.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 2.
7. Id. at 9.
8. Id. at 17-22.
9. Id. at 18.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 18-19.
12. Id. at 19.
13. Id. at 20.
14. Id. at 19.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 20.
17. Id.
18. Id. at 25-27.
19. Id. at 28-41.
20. Id. at 42-44. The Certifications were made by Judges Raymundo G. Vallega, Josephine M. Advento Vito-Cruz, and Arthur O. Malabaguio.
21. Id. at 45-47.
22. Id. at 47.
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. Circ. No. 62-97 (1997), no. 4.
26. OCA Circ. No. 08-2014 (2014) and OCA Circ. No. 100-2014 (2014).