Office of the Court Administrator v. Oso

THIRD DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-18-3808. June 10, 2019.][Formerly A.M. No. 18-01-17-RTC (Report on the Discreet Investigation at the Hall of Justice, Tandag City, Surigao del Sur)]

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs.MS. DARYL B. OSO, LEGAL RESEARCHER II AND ACTING BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, BRANCH 40, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TANDAG CITY, SURIGAO DEL SUR, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 10, 2019, which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. P-18-3808 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Ms. Daryl B. Oso, Legal Researcher II and Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 40, Regional Trial Court of Tandag City, Surigao del Sur); [Formerly A.M. No. 18-01-17-RTC (Report on the Discreet Investigation at the Hall of Justice, Tandag City, Surigao del Sur)]. — For resolution is a Letter-Complaint 1 dated June 30, 2017 addressed to Atty. Caridad A. Pabello, Chief of Office, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), filed by an anonymous concerned employee (complainant) against respondent Daryl B. Oso (Oso), Legal Researcher II and Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 40, Regional Trial Court of Tandag City, Surigao del Sur, for grave misconduct, abuse of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The Report and Recommendation 2 of the OCA, dated November 12, 2018, are as follows:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is in compliance with the Resolution dated 30 July 2018 of the Court (Second Division), referring to this Office for evaluation, report and recommendation the Comment dated 11 April 2018 of Ms. Daryl B. Oso (respondent), Legal Researcher II and Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 40, [Regional Trial Court of] Tandag City, Surigao del Sur, relative to the instant administrative complaint.

As a background, in a letter dated 30 June 2017 addressed to Atty. Caridad A. Pabello, Chief, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), a "concerned court personnel" charges respondent with grave misconduct, abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The letter-writer alleged that respondent willfully and shamelessly utilizes the Hall of Justice (HOJ), Tandag City, Surigao Del Sur, in her private profitable engagement as part-time law instructor of Saint Therese College (STC) and Surigao del Sur State University (SDSSU), tertiary and university schools of Tandag City, which caused undue injury to the Government for incurring "undue expense" and prejudice to the public service.

The letter-writer elaborated that respondent holds classes and discussions for her STC and SDSSU students inside the courtroom of Branch 40, RTC, Tandag City, during office hours in a fully-airconditioned and lighted room.

The said letter-writer added that as the Acting Clerk of Court, respondent has been abusing her administrative supervision and authority over her staff. Respondent bullies and bosses around court personnel around, and withholds the approval of their Daily Time Records (DTRs). Further, respondent deliberately holds in abeyance the HOJ personnel's Individual Performance Commitment and Review Form (IPCR) and the renewal of their six (6) months employment without just cause and due process, thus depriving them of their family sustenance and financial obligations.

xxx xxx xxx

Consequently, a discreet investigation at the HOJ, Tandag City, Surigao City was conducted on 02 to 04 August 2017 by Atty. Generoso O. Damot, Jr. and Atty. Aristeo Franklin M. Garcia from the Office of then Deputy Court Administrator Thelma C. Bahia. All court staff, HOJ employees and security personnel who were present on 02 August 2017 were interviewed to elicit information and shed light on the allegations.

In a Memorandum dated 03 October 2017 (Investigation Report) on the discreet investigation at the HOJ, Tandag City, Surigao del Sur, addressed to the Court Administrator, the investigators recommended that the charge for abuse of authority be dismissed as no competent proof was presented to substantiate the charge. However, as to the unauthorized use of [Oso] of the facilities of the HOJ, the investigators found respondent guilty of dishonesty when respondent lied "when she said that she held classes for five (5) days only because based on the entries, Ms. Oso (respondent) used the courtroom of Branch 40 on twelve (12) different dates including 29 April 2017 which is a Saturday. It is likewise not true that she used the court room from 12:00 nn to 1:00 pm only because there were instances that she used the court room starting at 9:00 am and 9:55 am. There was likewise an instance, particularly on 24 May 2017, that she used the court room for her classes during office hours, from 9:55 am to 12:15 pm, and even beyond office hours from 7:57pm to 9:15pm."

In its Report dated 07 December 2017, the OCA recommended, among others, that respondent be directed to comment within fifteen (15) days from notice on why she did not fully disclose the truth, an omission tantamount to dishonesty, on the extent of her unauthorized use of the courtroom in violation of SC Administrative Circular No. 3-92 in relation to A.M. No. 01-9-09-SC, as well as on other allegations contained in the Memorandum Report dated 03 October 2017 (Investigation Report).

In a Resolution dated 05 February 2018, the Court adopted the recommendation of the OCA.

Comes now the Comment dated 11 April 2018 of respondent, denying the allegations raised in the anonymous letter and the Memorandum dated 03 October 2017 (Investigation Report).

As to the finding of dishonesty, respondent explained that when she was asked by the investigators if she knew someone who has been conducting classes in the courtroom, she immediately replied that she was familiar with the complaint and surmised that she was the one being referred to in that blind item. The investigators interrogated her in Tagalog and she had difficulty in expressing her thoughts in Tagalog, leading to the impression that she admitted the allegations. According to her, what she confirmed was the fact that she knew of such allegations considering that Mr. Wilfranie T. Luna left a copy of his complaint in the office's printer.

Respondent claimed that for the longest time when she requested the guards to open the court, it was always work-related. She denied that she was then teaching because she oftentimes used the court whenever she conducted case studies/planning for Enhanced Justice of Wheels Program (EJOW).

Respondent further averred that in those specific instances mentioned in the Memorandum (Investigation Report), she was in the office on 29 April 2017 to finish some letter invitations. On 24 May 2017, she instructed the guards to open the courtroom to pick up the borrowed chairs, tables, etc. for launching of the EJOW. It was never for the purpose of holding classes. She had casual conversations with her students five (5) times and as to the other days mentioned, her students would just visit her to get their reading materials. Others went to her office to ask for removal examinations and to get their grades. Respondent explained that she merely entertained her students during lunchtime. Their conversations were merely casual and not regularly scheduled so as to constitute a class; it was never habitual and done in large scale. She added that to say that she was using the court in a fully air-conditioned and lighted room is unfounded because with or without her presence, the air-conditioned [room] would still be on and the office well-lighted even at lunchtime considering that for the month of May 2017, Branch 40, RTC, was the center of the EJOW preparations. The court was frequently opened for that purpose.

Respondent also informed the Court that the logbook containing the April and May 2017 entries, which was used as evidence of her dishonesty, is now lost. She alleged that the security personnel revealed to her that per the instruction of Mr. Welfranie Luna, they placed her name in the logbook as the one opening and using the court with the insinuation that she was conducting classes. Since Mr. Luna was their immediate supervisor, they had to do his bidding or else they would lose their job.

As to the other charges, respondent claimed that the complaint is clearly vindictive and filed for purely personal reasons. She claimed that she is just strict in the implementation of the rules in the office. She also explained that sometime in January 2017, the HOJ personnel asked her to sign their performance rating forms. The Public Attorney's Office (PAO) and the Provincial Prosecutor's Office have been complaining to her about the inefficiency of the HOJ employees. Hence, she only signed their ratings after all the HOJ occupants signified their approval, and constantly reminded them to do their best and apprised them of their infractions. She maintained that her alleged infractions as reported in the anonymous complaint are just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath is a deep hatred for her because she dared to stand up against the illegal activities of the court.

EVALUATION: SC Administrative Circular No. 3-92 provides that the Halls of Justice may only be used for functions related to the administration of justice and for no other purpose:

SC ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 3-92, AUGUST 31, 1992

TO: ALL JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL

SUBJECT: PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF HALLS OF JUSTICE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PURPOSES

All judges and court personnel are hereby reminded that the Halls of Justice may be used only for purposes directly related to the functioning and operation of the courts of justice, and may not be devoted to any other use, least of all as residential quarters of the judges or court personnel, or for carrying on therein any trade or profession.

xxx xxx xxx

Similar thereto, Section 3, Part I of A.M. No. 01-9-09-SC also provides similar restrictions regarding the use of the Halls of Justice, to wit:

PART I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

xxx xxx xxx.

Sec. 3. USE OF [Halls of Justice] HOJ. —

Sec. 3.1. The HOJ shall be for the exclusive use of Judges, Prosecutors, Public Attorneys, Probation and Parole Officers and, in the proper cases, the Registries of Deeds, including their support personnel.

Sec. 3.2. The HOJ shall be used only for court and office purposes and shall not be used for residential, i.e., dwelling or sleeping, or commercial purposes.

Sec. 3.3. Cooking, except for boiling water for coffee or similar beverage, shall not be allowed in the HOJ.

First, this Office agrees with the finding in the Memorandum dated 03 October 2017 (Investigation Report) that there was the unauthorized use of the facilities of the HOJ. Based on the records, respondent used the courtroom for her classes. The same being outside of official functions of the court, the use is considered as unauthorized. As found by the investigators: "Indeed, the use of Ms. Oso of the court room for her classes caused undue injury to the Government for incurring 'undue expense' and prejudice to public service and exposed judicial records to danger of loss or damage. On this score alone, Ms. Oso is administratively liable."

Respondent argued that the logbook is presently lost and its loss has denied her right to confront the evidence against her. However, while the logbook is missing, the following findings of the investigators are relevant:

"However, based on the entries in the logbook of the security personnel, the veracity of which were confirmed by the very same personnel who made said entries, Ms. Oso used the court room for her classes on the following date and time:

 

Date:	From:	To:	Duration:
1. 24 April 2417 — Monday	12:15pm	1:34pm	1 hour and 19 mins.
2. 25 April 2017 — Tuesday	11:55pm	1:42pm	1 hour and 47 mins.
3. 25 April 2017 — Wednesday	12:00nn	1:33pm	1 hour and 33 mins.
4. 27 April 2017 — Thursday	12:00nn	1:45pm	1 hour and 45 mins.
5. 28 April 2017 — Friday	12:00nn	1:21pm	1 hour and 21 mins.
6. 29 April 2017 — Saturday	9:00am	11:12pm	2 hours and 12 mins.
7. 08 May 2017 — Monday	12:09pm	12:55pm	46 mins.
8. 09 May 2017 — Tuesday	12:08pm	1:30pm	1 hour and 22 mins.
9. 10 May 2017 — Wednesday	12:00pm	12:45pm	45 mins.
10. 11 May 2017 — Thursday	12:00pm	1:11pm	1 hour and 11 mins.
11. 12 May 2017 — Friday	12:30pm	1:50pm	1 hour and 20 mins.
12. 24 May 2017 — Wednesday	9:55[am]	12:15pm	2 hours and 20 mins.
	7:57 pm	9:15pm	1 hour and 18mins.

 

Clearly, Ms. Oso was lying when she said that she held classes for five (5) days only because based on the entries, Ms. Oso used the courtroom of Branch 40 on twelve (12) different dates including 29 April 2017 which is a Saturday.

It is likewise not true that she used the courtroom from 12:00 nn to 1:00 pm only because there were instances that she used the courtroom starting at 9:00 am and 9:55 am. There was likewise an instance, particularly on 24 May 2017, that she used the court room for her classes during office hours, from 9:55 am to 12:15 pm, and even beyond office hours, from 7:57 pm to 9:15 pm."

Thus, the loss of the logbook notwithstanding, the findings of the investigators based on the entries on the logbook, as verified and confirmed by the same personnel who made the entry, enjoy the presumption of regularity. The presumption can only be overturned if there is a clear and convincing evidence against the same. In this case, the affidavit of Security Guards Nolito M. Cubero and Paul A. Jimenez, explaining that they were instructed by the HOJ Head to put the erroneous entries in the logbook, deserves scant consideration as the investigators saw and personally examined the logbook and questioned the very persons who made the entries as to their veracity.

Verily, this Office finds that there was an unauthorized use of the halls of justice, taking into consideration respondent's previous admission and her present denial of the same.

In Ryan S. Plaza vs. Atty. Marcelina R. Amamio, et al. (A.M. No. P-08-2559, 19 March 2010), the Supreme Court held that "the court and its premises shall be used exclusively for court or judicial functions and not for any other purpose. As temples of justice, their dignity and sanctity must be preserved at all times."

In view of respondent's unauthorized use of the facilities of the HOJ which necessarily entails the use of power and electricity charged against the government funds incurring "undue expense" and prejudice to public service and exposed judicial records to danger of loss or damage, respondent is found guilty of simple misconduct and, therefore, shall suffer the penalty of suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day.

The unauthorized use of the HOJ facilities having been established, this Office likewise agrees with the finding of the investigators that respondent is also liable for dishonesty when she lied as to the conduct of classes in the courtroom.

In Committee on Security and Safety, Court of Appeals vs. Reynaldo V. Dian Co (A.M. No. CA-15-31-P, 16 June 2015), the Court explained:

In a long line of cases, dishonesty has been defined as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. Although dishonesty covers a broad spectrum of conduct, Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 06-05385 set the criteria for determining the severity of dishonest acts. CSC Resolution No. 06-0538 recognizes that dishonesty is a grave offense generally punishable by dismissal from service. Nonetheless, some acts of dishonesty are not constitutive of offenses so grave that they warrant the ultimate penalty of dismissal. Thus, the CSC issued parameters "in order to guide the disciplining authority in charging the proper offense" and in imposing the correct penalty.

The resolution classifies dishonesty into three acts: (1) serious, (2) less serious, and (3) simple. Serious dishonesty is punishable by dismissal. Less serious dishonesty is punishable by suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. Simple dishonesty is punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the second offense, and dismissal for the third offense.

xxx xxx xxx.

On the other hand, the presence of any of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of the dishonest act constitutes the offense of simple dishonesty:

1. The dishonest act did not cause damage or prejudice to the government.

2. The dishonest act had no direct relation to or does not involve the duties and responsibilities of the respondent.

3. In falsification of any official document, where the information falsified is not related to his/her employment.

4. That the dishonest act did not result in any gain or benefit to the offender.

5. Other analogous circumstances.

In the present case, respondent's act of lying on whether she conducted classes during office hours and her unauthorized use of the facilities of the court constitute the less grave offenses of simple dishonesty and simple misconduct. Considering that the incidents transpired prior to the effectivity of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the 2011 Revised Rules of Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2011 RRACCS) shall apply.

Rule 10, Section 50 (Penalty for the Most Serious Offense) of the 2011 RRACCS provides:

Section [50].  Penalty for the Most Serious Offense. — If respondent is found guilty of two (2) or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.

The corresponding penalties for the offense of simple dishonesty and simple misconduct, as provided in the 2011 RRACCS, are as follows:

Rule 10, Section 46, Sub-section D. The following less grave offenses are punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense; and dismissal from the service for the second offense:

1. Simple Neglect of Duty;

2. Simple Misconduct;

xxx xxx xxx.

Rule 10, Section 46, Sub-section E. The less grave offense of Simple Dishonesty is punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense; six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the second offense; and dismissal for the third offense.

It would appear that of the two (2) offenses, the most serious one is simple misconduct because the penalty for the second (2nd) offense is dismissal while in simple dishonesty, the penalty for the second (2nd) offense is six months (6) and one (1) day to one (1) year. Thus, in accordance with Section 50 of the 2011 RRACCS, the penalty for simple misconduct shall be imposed, aggravated by simple dishonesty.

However, it appears that there is one (1) mitigating circumstance due to the fact that this is respondent's first offense. Rule 10, Section 49 (Manner of Imposition) of the 2011 RRACCS shall apply.

Section 49. Manner of Imposition. — When applicable, the imposition of the penalty may be made in accordance with the manner provided herein below:

a. The minimum of the penalty shall be imposed where only mitigating and no aggravating circumstances are present.

b. The medium of the penalty shall be imposed where no mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present.

c. The maximum of the penalty shall be imposed where only aggravating and no mitigating circumstances are present.

d. Where aggravating and mitigating circumstances are present, paragraph [a] shall be applied where there are more mitigating circumstances present; paragraph [b] shall be applied when the circumstances equally offset each other; and paragraph [c] shall be applied when there are more aggravating circumstances.

In view thereof, considering that the attendant circumstances in the present case equally offset each other, the medium penalty of suspension of one (1) month and one (1) [day] to six (6) months for simple misconduct (the most serious infraction) shall be imposed in its medium period, which is three (3) months.

As to the other charges (abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service) against respondent, this Office agrees with the findings in the Investigation Report that the same should be dismissed because no competent proof was presented to substantiate them.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:

(1) respondent Daryl B. Oso, Legal Researcher II, Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 40, Regional Trial Court, Tandag City, Surigao Del Sur, be found GUILTY of Simple Misconduct and Simple Dishonesty, and be meted the penalty of suspension of three (3) months without pay, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely; and

(2) all court employees in Tandag City, Surigao del Sur, be REMINDED to comply with SC Administrative Circular No. 3-92 in relation to A.M. No. 01-9-09-SC pertaining to the prohibition against the use of the Halls of Justice for purposes other than the official functions of the court.

Finding the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, the Court RESOLVES to ADOPT and AFFIRM the same. Respondent Daryl B. Oso, Legal Researcher II, Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 40, Regional Trial Court, Tandag City, Surigao Del Sur, is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of three (3) months without pay, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 21-29.

2.Id. at 233-245.