THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. CTA-20-03-P. June 30, 2021.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-5-CTA-P]
ADRIAN P. MANAOIS, complainant, vs.CHIEF JUDICIAL STAFF OFFICER MA. ROSARIO R. ESCAÑO, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, QUEZON CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. CTA-20-03-P [Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-5-CTA-P] (Adrian P. Manaois v. Chief Judicial Staff Officer Ma. Rosario R. Escaño, Court of Tax Appeals, Quezon City). — It appearing that the copy of the Resolution dated September 30, 2020, addressed and sent to complainant Adrian P. Manaois at 101 Union Civica Street, Brgy. Sto. Niño, Galas, Quezon City, was returned unserved with postal carrier's notation "RTS-Moved Out" on the envelope, the Court resolves to DEEM said copy of resolution as SERVED on the addressee.
The Court resolves the Motion for Reconsideration 1 of its Resolution 2 dated September 30, 2020 filed by the respondent Ma. Rosario R. Escaño, Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Human Resources Division (HRD), Office of Administrative and Financial Services (OAFS), Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), which found her guilty of Gross Dishonesty and imposed upon her the penalty of a fine in the amount of P20,000.00. 3
The Antecedents
This administrative case is rooted on the sworn Salaysay 4 dated October 29, 2014 filed by the complainant Adrian P. Manaois, Human Resource Management Officer III, HRD, OAFS, CTA, charging the respondent, among others, with Serious Dishonesty, Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, and Falsification of Official Documents. 5
The complainant alleged that the respondent had abused her position when she falsified and/or manipulated official records to protect her friends in the office. Specifically, he claimed that the respondent: (a) altered the time-in entry of some employees in their Daily Time Records (DTRs) to prevent them from being considered tardy on certain days; (b) processed the sick leave application of an employee even though she was fully aware that said employee was present at work and performed her duties on said date; and (c) requested him to change entries in the Summary of Absences and Tardiness Report for July to December 2011 to make it appear that some employees were not habitually tardy. 6
In her defense, the respondent argued that it was a known practice in the CTA to allow leaves of absence to be taken by employees who would like to avoid incurring tardiness in their DTRs. 7 She likewise denied that she had falsified or manipulated the DTRs of some employees, explaining that the changes were made to "correct" erroneous entries in consideration of the approved sick leave applications of said employees on certain days. 8
In its Resolution 9 dated April 17, 2017, the Court referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report, and recommendation. 10
The OCA's Report and Recommendation
In the Memorandum 11 dated April 8, 2019, the OCA found that the respondent, by her own admissions, had abused her position and falsified and/or manipulated official records: 12
Under existing rules, every official and employee of each court is mandated to accomplish the Daily Time Record (Civil Service Form No. 48)/Bundy Card, indicating truthfully and accurately the time of arrival in and departure from the office.
In the instant case, it is indubitable that the employees subject of complainant Manaois' complaint reported for work, albeit late. However, they opted not to indicate their true time of arrival and instead applied for leaves of absence and were allowed by respondent Escaño.
These circumstances taken in their entirety will lead a reasonable mind to conclude that this practice is being resorted to in order to circumvent the rules on habitual tardiness x x x. 13
The OCA concluded that the respondent, by consenting to the practice of not indicating truthfully and accurately an employee's time of arrival to the office and allowing the filing of an application for leave of absence to cover up for said employee's habitual tardiness, is guilty of Gross Dishonesty which is punishable by dismissal from the service even for the first offense. 14 However, the OCA recommended instead that the respondent be fined in the amount of P20,000.00, considering that: (a) this is her first offense in her thirty-five (35) years of service in the Judiciary; (b) her actions appeared to have been done in good faith as she was never taken to task by her superiors on the matter; and (c) she is actually discharging frontline functions as provided under Section 52 (1) (b) of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. 15
The Court, in the assailed Resolution 16 dated September 30, 2020, adopted and approved the OCA's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation to find the respondent guilty of Gross Dishonesty and to impose upon her the penalty of a fine of P20,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will merit a more severe penalty. 17
Hence, this Motion for Reconsideration. 18
In her motion, the respondent reiterates that she did not abuse her position when she allowed employees to file an application for leave of absence instead of being recorded as tardy. 19 She insists that in doing so, she only applied a practice that has long been adopted in the CTA, even before her employment thereto in 2006. 20 The respondent likewise claims that she never falsified DTRs to cover up for any absenteeism and/or tardiness. 21 Rather, she counters that the filing of an application for leave of absence by an employee who comes in late is an effective deterrent against tardiness. 22 For these reasons, respondent prays that the Court clear her name and dismiss the present complaint for lack of merit. 23
The Court's Ruling
The Court upholds the OCA's findings of fact, but modifies the designation of the offense and the penalty to be imposed upon respondent, taking into serious consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case.
As the OCA aptly pointed out, the respondent, by allowing employees to file applications for leave of absence to avoid being recorded as tardy on certain days, had effectively assisted them in circumventing the rules on habitual tardiness. 24 Per the records, the respondent herself admitted that she allowed the DTRs of some employees to be "corrected" to reflect the approval of their leave applications on the days when they came to work late. 25
Section 11 of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 2-99, entitled "Strict Observance of Working Hours and Disciplinary Action for Absenteeism and Tardiness," provides:
Absenteeism and tardiness even if such do not qualify as habitual or frequent under Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1991, shall be dealt with severely, and any falsification of daily time records to cover up for such absenteeism and/or tardiness shall constitute gross dishonesty or serious misconduct. 26 (Emphasis supplied.)
It is for this reason that the Court cannot simply countenance the respondent's actions. To reiterate, the respondent in this case had allowed some employees to cover up their tardiness by filing leave applications even though said employees were actually at work performing their official functions. 27 This is precisely the misrepresentation in the DTRs that the respondent had countersigned and, in effect, certified to be true and correct, despite full knowledge that the concerned employees were, in fact, present in the office on those days.
Clearly, this practice is tantamount to an irregularity in the keeping of time records as it serves to exploit a loophole in the pertinent rules and regulations on habitual tardiness. Thus, the Court finds the respondent administratively liable for consenting to such irregular practice in the office, pursuant to Section 4, Rule XVII (on Government Office Hours) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws:
SECTION 4. 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.
Nevertheless, the Court reconsiders its earlier ruling and finds the respondent not guilty of any dishonest act, in the absence of clear proof of bad faith or malicious intent on her part.
"Dishonesty is the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive or betray and intent to violate the truth." 28 It is not simply a case of bad judgment or negligence, and it cannot be presumed. 29 In Civil Service Commission v. Perocho, Jr., 30 the Court further explained that:
x x x Dishonesty is a question of intention. In ascertaining the intention of a person accused of dishonesty, consideration must be taken not only of the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the act committed by the respondent, but also of his state of mind at the time the offense was committed, the time he might have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have had at that moment. 31 (Emphasis supplied.)
It bears noting that the OCA itself found that the respondent's complained acts had been done in good faith, which is clearly evident from her Letter-Query 32 dated September 2, 2015 addressed to the Civil Service Commission seeking guidance as regards said practice of employees filing an application for leave of absence in lieu of incurring tardiness. In other words, the respondent's actions are mere products of bad judgment, and should not, in any way, be viewed as dishonesty, let alone gross dishonesty, on her part.
That being said, the falsification of DTRs is an act of dishonesty, and the respondent, by consenting to a practice that enables employees to do so, albeit in good faith, must still be held accountable for own her actions. 33
Under Section 46 (F), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, light offenses, which include the violation of reasonable office rules and regulations, are punishable by reprimand for the first offense. In this case, the Court deems it proper to impose instead the penalty of admonition against the respondent, considering that this is her first offense in her thirty-five (35) years of service in the Judiciary. 34
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The assailed Resolution dated September 30, 2020 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that, the respondent Ma. Rosario R. Escaño, Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Human Resources Division, Office of Administrative and Financial Services, Court of Tax Appeals, is found administratively liable for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations. She is hereby ADMONISHED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED." (ROSARIO, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2833)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 477-492.
2.Id. at 454.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 1-2.
5.Id. at 2.
6.Id. at 4-14.
7.Id. at 275.
8.Id. at 277-279.
9.Id. at 400-401.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 423-431.
12.Id. at 426.
13.Id. at 428-429.
14.Id. at 430.
15.Id. at 430-431.
16.Id. at 454.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 477-492.
19.Id. at 479.
20.Id. at 480.
21.Id. at 485.
22.Id. at 486.
23.Id. at 490.
24.Id. at 429.
25.Id. at 277-279.
26.Id. at 430.
27.Id. at 427-428.
28.Oira v. Bordado, A.M. No. P-18-3905, December 10, 2018.
29.Id.
30. 555 Phil. 156, 164 (2007).
31.Id.
32.Rollo, p. 518.
33. See Samonte v. Roden, 818 Phil. 289, 296 (2017).
34.Rollo, p. 430.