Office of the Ombudsman v. Elipe

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 239188. November 14, 2018.]

THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner,vs. PRESIDENT DAGONDON ELIPE AND PRISTINE ELIPE QUIZON, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 November 2018which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 239188 (The Office of the Ombudsman vs. President Dagondon Elipe and Pristine Elipe Quizon). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated January 18, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 07933-MIN which modified the Decision 3 dated July 24, 2015 of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) in OMB-M-A-15-0093.

The Facts

The instant case stemmed from a Complaint dated January 22, 2015 filed by Dionnie Peril Gersana (Gersana), Assistant City Administrator of Cagayan de Oro City, against respondents President Dagondon Elipe (Councilor Elipe) in his capacity as Councilor and Pristine Elipe Quizon (Quizon) in her capacity as Secretary of Councilor Elipe, of the City Government of Cagayan de Oro, for Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

Gersana, in her Complaint, alleged that Quizon made it appear on her Daily Time Record (DTR) covering the period of October 16 to 31, 2013 that she reported for work during the following dates: October 25, 29 and 30. It appears, however, on Quizon's travel records that were obtained from the Bureau of Immigration that she left the country on October 25, 2013 and arrived back in the Philippines only on October 30, 2013. Gersana also alleged that despite awareness of the aforementioned absences and false entries in Quizon's DTR, Councilor Elipe still approved and certified its correctness. Thus, on the basis of Councilor Elipe's verification and approval, Quizon was paid her salary. 4

The respondents averred that the questioned entries on Quizon's DTR were made in good faith and that they had no intention to falsify the same. They further alleged that as Councilor Elipe's confidential employee, Quizon rendered more than eight hours of work a day and even on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays; and that since a confidential legal staff like her are not entitled to overtime pay, as a common practice, they are allowed to compensate their overtime work by means of offsetting it against their absence, or upon approval, to avail of the flexible working hours' system. 5

In a Decision 6 dated July 24, 2015, the OMB found the respondents guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of an Official Document, the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, premised on the foregoing, respondents President Dagondon Elipe and Pristine Elipe Quizon are hereby held guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of an Official Document and are meted out the supreme penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE. Respondents Acenas and De San Miguel are absolved of the charges.

The penalty of dismissal carries with it the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from taking civil service examinations.

In the event that the dismissal can no longer be enforced due to any of the respondents' separation from the service, the same shall be converted into a Fine equivalent to respondents' respective salaries for one (1) year payable to the Office of the Ombudsman, and may be deductible from their retirement benefits, accrued leave credits or any receivable from their office.

The Honorable Mayor of the City of Cagayan de Oro is hereby directed to cause the implementation of this Decision within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, with a directive to submit to this Office within the same period, a Compliance Report indicating the Docket Number of this case. CAIHTE

SO ORDERED. 7

Aggrieved, the respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration 8 but the same was denied by the OMB in an Order 9 dated October 20, 2016. The OMB explained that the respondents' claim of good faith cannot serve to exonerate them. The pertinent portion of the order reads as follows:

Respondents' claim of good faith cannot serve to exonerate them. An individual's personal good faith is a concept of his own mind, and may not conclusively be determined by his protestations alone. It implies honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. Here, respondent knew that respondent Quizon was out of the country on the days in question. 10

Undeterred, the respondents filed a Petition for Review in the CA averring once more that they acted in good faith and without malice. They likewise averred that the penalty meted out was too harsh, unjust and excessive.

In a Decision 11 dated January 18, 2018, the CA affirmed the findings of the OMB but modified the penalty imposed by the latter. The CA opined that given the confidential nature of Quizon's employment and the amount involved (Php1,894.08), the lower penalty of a fine should be imposed instead of dismissal from the service. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 24 July 2015 rendered by the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao is MODIFIED, such that the administrative penalty imposed on President Dagondon Elipe is lowered to a fine in the amount equivalent to one month of his salary as Councilor of the City of Cagayan de Oro, and the administrative penalty imposed on Pristine Elipe Quizon is lowered to a fine in the amount equivalent to six months of her salary as Secretary I of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.

SO ORDERED. 12

The Issue

The pivotal issue to be resolved is whether or not the appellate court erred when it reduced the penalties imposed on the respondents by the OMB in OMB-M-A-15-0093.

Ruling of the Court

There is no question that the respondents are guilty of Serious dishonesty and Falsification of an official document.

The following facts are borne out by the records: 1) Quizon is a confidential employee of Councilor Elipe, who was then Councilor of the City Government of Cagayan de Oro; 2) during the employment of Quizon as Secretary I, she submitted DTRs indicating that she reported for work on the following dates: October 25, 29 and 30, 2013; 3) Councilor Elipe approved and certified Quizon's DTR as true and correct verifying the hours indicated therein; 4) that by reason of the verified DTR submitted, Quizon was able to collect her full salary for the period of October 16 to 31, 2013; and 5) that based on her travel records that were obtained from the Bureau of Immigration, she left the country on October 25, 2013 and arrived back in the Philippines only on October 30, 2013.

Falsification of an official document, as an administrative offense, is knowingly making false statements in official or public documents. 13 On the other hand, dishonesty is the concealment or distortion of truth or a disposition to defraud, cheat or deceive, and intent to violate the truth. Where a public officer or employee employs falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to his or her employment, an act constituting serious dishonesty is thereby committed.

Quizon claims that being a confidential employee, she was allowed to have flexible working hours. The respondents likewise contended that "offsetting" of overtime work is allowed as a common practice among the confidential staff of the Sanggunian.

The Court cannot accept the respondents' contention. Falsifying one's DTR amounts to dishonesty. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Torres, 14 the Court explained:

Falsification of DTRs amounts to dishonesty. The evident purpose of requiring government employees to keep a time record is to show their attendance in office to work and to be paid accordingly. Closely adhering to the policy of no work-no pay, a DTR is primarily, if not solely, intended to prevent damage or loss to the government as would result in instances where it pays an employee for no work done.

Respondents claim of good faith, which implies a sincere intent not to do any falsehood or to seek any undue advantage, cannot be believed. This Court pronounced —

Good faith, here understood, is an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning or statutory definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage. An individual's personal good faith is a concept of his own mind and, therefore, may not conclusively be determined by his protestations alone. It implies honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the validity of ones right, ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of intention to overreach another. x x x.

In this case, respondents knew fully well that the entries they made in their respective DTRs were false considering that it was physically impossible for them to have reported for full work days when during those times they were actually attending their regular classes, which undoubtedly would take up most of the daytime hours of the weekdays. With this knowledge, respondents did not bother to correct the DTR entries to honestly reflect their attendance at their workplace and the actual work they performed. Worse, they repeatedly did this for a long period of time, consequently allowing them to collect their full salaries for the entire duration of their public employment as staff members of their father. 15 (Emphasis Ours) DETACa

Quizon knowingly and voluntarily made false entries in her DTR so as to make it appear that she reported for and rendered work on October 25, 29 and 30, 2013 even though it was physically impossible for her to do so. Even if she claims to have acted under the assumption that such act of falsifying one's DTR has ripened into practice among the staff of the Sanggunian, this does not validate an otherwise unlawful act nor exonerate her from administrative liability. Wrong does not cease to be wrong just because it has been adopted by the majority.

As for Councilor Elipe, the Court agrees with the OMB that being Quizon's immediate superior, his act of certifying Quizon's DTR entries as true and correct, is not a mere ministerial function. The fact that Councilor Elipe affixed his signature below the phrase "Verified as to prescribed office hours" made him accountable for the act committed by Quizon because he confirmed and approved the untruthfulness of the entries in the said DTR. The nature of their personal and work relationship was such that Councilor Elipe cannot feign ignorance to the absences incurred by his employee, moreso when the latter is his secretary and sister. As Quizon's immediate superior, it is incumbent upon him to truly verify the truthfulness of the entries in her DTR. Although the position of a Secretary is primarily confidential in nature, this does not exempt the respondents from liability for violation of Civil Service laws.

The Court agrees with the appellate court's ruling that the penalty of Dismissal from Service with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification is too harsh a penalty considering that the amount involved (salary paid to Quizon for the dates she was absent) is only Php1,894.08.

In Re: Administrative Case for Falsification of Official Documents and Dishonesty against Randy S. Villanueva, 16 the Court held that falsification of an official document such as the DTR is considered a grave offense. It also amounts to dishonesty. Both falsification and dishonesty are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the service, even for the first offense, with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service. In some cases, however, the Court refrained from imposing these penalties in the presence of mitigating factors. Circumstances such as the respondent's length of service in the judiciary, acknowledgment of his or her infractions, feeling of remorse and family situations, among other things, have had varying degrees of influence on the Court's determination of the imposable penalty.

It bears stressing, however, that since the respondents were found guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of an Official Document, the penalty of fine in lieu of dismissal from the service, as imposed by the appellate court, is not legally commensurate with the administrative offenses involved. Even if the Court were to consider the respondents' length of service and lack of prior offense as a mitigating factor, the penalty of fine is too small a price to pay.

In the similar case of Torres, 17 the Court reinstated the original decision of the Ombudsman which tempered the penalty of dismissal from service to suspension of one (1) year without pay, to wit:

As mentioned above, falsification of a DTR (an official document) amounts to dishonesty. Thus, respondents should be held administratively liable. While dismissal was originally recommended for imposition on respondents, the penalty was eventually tempered to suspension of one (1) year without pay.

We agree with the imposition of the lower penalty considering that respondents' public employment with the then Sangguniang Bayan of Malabon, even while they were regular college students, was of a confidential character, and the arrangement was with the full knowledge and consent of their father who appointed them to their positions.

While this Court recognizes the relative laxity given to confidential employees in terms of adjusted or flexible working hours, substantial non-attendance at work as blatant and glaring as in the case of respondents cannot be countenanced. Collecting full salaries for work practically not rendered is simply, downright reprehensible. Inevitably, this leads to the erosion of the public's faith in and respect for the government. 18

In Light Rail Transit Authority v. Salvaña, 19 where the respondent employee submitted a falsified medical certificate to support her application for sick leave, the Court ruled that receipt of her full salary during said period would be tantamount to causing damage or prejudice to the government since she would have received compensation she was not entitled to receive. The offense committed was classified as Less Serious Dishonesty which carries with it the penalty of suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. 20 The pertinent portions of the decision reads:

Respondent's application for sick leave, if approved, would allow her to be absent from work without any deductions from her salary. Being a government employee, respondent would have received her salaries coming from government funds.

Since her application for sick leave was supported by a false medical certificate, it would have been improperly filed, which made all of her absences during this period unauthorized. The receipt, therefore, of her salaries during this period would be tantamount to causing damage or prejudice to the government since she would have received compensation she was not entitled to receive.

This act of causing damage or prejudice, however, cannot be classified as serious since the information falsified had no direct relation to her employment. Whether or not she was suffering from hypertension is a matter that has no relation to the functions of her office.

Given these circumstances, the offense committed can be properly identified as less serious dishonesty. Under Section 4 of Resolution No. 06-0538, less serious dishonesty is classified by the following acts:

Section 4. The presence of any one of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of the dishonest act would constitute the offense of Less Serious Dishonesty:

a. The dishonest act caused damage and prejudice to the government which is not so serious as to qualify under the immediately preceding classification.

b. The respondent did not take advantage of his/her position in committing the dishonest act.

c. Other analogous circumstances. x x x

We hold, therefore, that respondent Atty. Aurora A. Salvaña is guilty of less serious dishonesty. 21 (Emphasis deleted) aDSIHc

There is thus no iota of doubt that herein respondents are guilty of dishonesty and falsification of an official document. However, to conform with Civil Service Rules and existing jurisprudence, the appellate court's imposition of the lower penalty of a fine equivalent to one-month salary of Councilor Elipe and six months' salary of Quizon should be modified.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated January 18, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07933-MIN is AFFIRMED with modification such that the administrative penalty of fine imposed on President Dagondon Elipe and Pristine Elipe Quizon is converted to suspension of one (1) year without pay in their capacities as Councilor and Secretary I of the City Government of Cagayan de Oro, respectively.

SO ORDERED." (J. Reyes, Jr., J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018.)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 14-34.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, with Associate Justices Eduardo T. Lloren and Walter S. Ong concurring; id. at 41-51.

3.Id. at 143-148.

4.Id. at 143-144.

5.Id. at 145.

6.Id. at 143-148.

7.Id. at 147-148.

8.Id. at 150-160.

9.Id. at 163-165.

10.Id. at 165.

11.Id. at 41-50.

12.Id. at 50.

13.Office of the Ombudsman v. Torres, 567 Phil 46, 58 (2008), citing Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 991936 (1999), Rule IV, Section 52 (A) (1) and (6).

14. 567 Phil. 46 (2008).

15.Id. at 59-60.

16. 556 Phil. 512 (2007).

17. Supra note 14.

18. Id. at 62-63.

19. 736 Phil. 123 (2014).

20. Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 06-0538 (2006), Section 2 (b).

21. Light Rail Transit Authority v. Salvaña, supra note 19, at 157-158.