SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. 2014-06-SC. October 14, 2015.]
RE: COMPLAINT OF CONCERNED LOWER COURT EMPLOYEES AGAINST SEVERAL PERSONNEL OF DISBURSEMENT SECTION, ACCOUNTING DIVISION, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 October 2015 which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. 2014-06-SC: RE: COMPLAINT OF CONCERNED LOWER COURT EMPLOYEES AGAINST SEVERAL PERSONNEL OF DISBURSEMENT SECTION, ACCOUNTING DIVISION, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
Court personnel shall devote their time exclusively to the affairs of the office during office hours. 1
On March 17, 2014, the Office of Administrative Services received an undated and unsigned Letter-Complaint (Complaint) addressed to Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer. Though unsigned, the Complaint states that it is from "Concerned Lower Court Employees." 2
The persons identified in the Complaint are employees of the Financial Management Office in the Office of the Court Administrator, namely: Leonardo C. Rosario, Jr. (Mr. Rosario), Accountant I, Disbursement Section; Myra D. Rosario (Mrs. Rosario), Accountant I, Revenue Section; Claudio C. Agsi (Agsi), Accountant III, Disbursement Section; and Atty. Gilda A. Sumpo (Sumpo), Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Accounting Division. Apart from being officers of the court, Mr. and Mrs. Rosario are also sales agents of a private networking business called Usana, a health supplements marketing company. 3 Agsi is also a professor in the University of the East's College of Business Administration. 4
The Complaint accuses Mr. Rosario of being frequently absent and tardy, engaging in his private business venture during office hours by stepping out of the office and frequently talking over the phone, and performing other acts not related to his work in the Supreme Court. 5 It also accuses Mrs. Rosario of being frequently absent and tardy, and engaging in her private business venture during office hours. 6 The Complaint charges Agsi of failing to call the attention of Mr. Rosario and preparing for Agsi's class during office hours. 7 For Sumpo, the Complaint accuses her of failing to advise Agsi and Mr. Rosario for their alleged laxity in performing their functions. 8 TAIaHE
The Office of Administrative Services directed respondents to file their Comments. 9
Mr. Rosario alleges that he did not prioritize his private business over his work in the Supreme Court. He states that if there were instances that he was tardy or absent, they "were mainly due to the doing of some personal errands and attending to the concerns of [his] children." 10 Further, he alleges that when he was seen talking on the phone, it was because he was calling to check on his children. 11 He claims that he always finished his work promptly. 12
Mrs. Rosario alleges that while she and her husband are engaged in a private business venture, she does not allow this to interfere with her work in the Accounting Division. 13
Agsi argues that there was no reason for him to admonish Mr. Rosario because Mr. Rosario performed his work and did not cause delay in the processing of vouchers. 14 Agsi adds that if there were delays, Mr. Rosario remedied them upon his return. 15 Further, Agsi denies that he checked papers and prepared for his classes during office hours. 16
Sumpo claims that she delegated to the different Section Chiefs the supervision over their respective personnel. 17 As such, these Section Chiefs are authorized to give permission to personnel whenever the latter wish to step out of the office for personal errands or whenever they give notice that they will be late or absent. 18 She claims that she instructed the Section Chiefs that if the personnel concerned was absent, the Section Chief should make sure that he or she was replaced to avoid delays. 19
To determine whether the issues in the Complaint have factual basis, the Office of Administrative Services invited the following personnel from the Disbursement Section of the Financial Management Office: John Relly L. Dela Cruz, Accountant II; 20 Virginia S. Supangan, Accounting Clerk II; 21 and Rossana F. Sanchez, Accounting Clerk III, Disbursement. 22
In its Memorandum for Atty. Enriqueta E. Vidal, the Office of Administrative Services made the following recommendations:
Based on the foregoing, this Office respectfully recommends the following:
1) that Mr. Leonardo C. Rosario, Jr. be REPRIMANDED for frequently leaving his workstation during office hours; and he is further REMINDED to avoid attending to his part[-]time business during office hours or any semblance thereof and conduct himself in accordance with the [Civil Service Commission] rules and regulations and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, with a stern warning that any act or acts of similar nature, shall be dealt with more severely in the future; and,
2) that the allegations of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties against Mr. Claudio C. Agsi, as well as Atty. Gilda A. Sumpo[,] be DISMISSED, for lack of evidence. 23 (Emphasis in the original)
The Office of Administrative Services excluded Mrs. Rosario from its recommendation because there were purportedly no allegations against her regarding her work. 24
Rule 133, Section 5 of the Rules of Court requires that in administrative cases, there must be substantial evidence to establish a fact:
Section 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (n)
Here, there is substantial evidence to support the finding that Mr. Rosario engaged in his personal errands during office hours. The witnesses, Virginia S. Supangan (Supangan) and Rossana F. Sanchez (Sanchez), were consistent in stating that Mr. Rosario would leave his desk during office hours. Because of Mr. Rosario's absence, his co-employees would have to be the ones to process Mr. Rosario's vouchers to avoid delay. In Supangan's sworn statement:
Q: Punta muna tayo kay Mr. Rosario. Among the allegations ay lagi siyang wala. Ano ang pagkakaalam mo tungkol dito? Ano ang ibig sabihin na laging wala si Mr. Rosario?
A: Wala sa table. Hawak niya kasi ay [Regional Trial Court] so kapag may nag-pa-follow up na taga-[l]ower [c]ourt at wala siya[,] hinihintay namin siya. Ang sinasabi na lang namin, "Pahintay na lang," kasi baka naman lumabas lang siya. 25
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Mga ilang beses ba in a month na lagi siyang wala sa pwesto niya?
Atty. Brigola, Jr.
Q: With your experience na nand'yan ka, mga ilang beses na nangyari ang ganun? cDHAES
A: Sa isang araw po ba?
Q: On the average sa isang araw?
Atty. Mananes
Q: Malinaw na laging wala si Mr. Rosario?
Atty. Brigola, Jr.
Q: Kinu-confirm mo ba 'yun?
A: Sa isang araw[,] mga dalawa siguro or sa average in a week, mga three (3) times po.26 (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Paano naman kung sakaling wala lang siya. Yung pumasok siya pero wala siya sa opisina?
A: Ginagawa na namin ang follow-up kasi naghihintay ang tao.27 (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Naniniwala ka ba sa mga narinig mong balita? Itong mga nakasulat sa anonymous complaint?
A: Tungkol kay [Mr. Rosario] na laging wala siya, opo. 28
Sanchez corroborated Supangan's testimony:
Q: May mga taong binanggit dito sa complaint. . . . Unahin natin si Mr. Rosario. Sinabi sa complaint na palagi siyang wala during office hours. Ano ang masasabi mo bilang ka-opisina niya? Sinabi mo kanina na andun ka naman palagi. Ano ang masasabi mo?
A: Palagi siyang wala. Talaga pong minsan nakaka-disturb na sa amin 'yun. Kunwari marami kaming vouchers, may kani-kanyang korte, tapos maraming follow[-]ups. Minsan, tao ka lang naman, 'yung maraming gagawin tapos trabaho ng iba ang gagawin mo. May side comment na, "Asan na ba si ano bakit palaging wala."
Q: Sino ang nag-ku-comment?
A: Lahat kami kasi kani-kanya kami ng bulk ng vouchers. Minsan kapag may follow[-]up sunud-sunod tapos may gagawin kang iba dahil wala 'yung tao. Mga side comments lang naman 'yun. 29 (Emphasis supplied)
Supangan's testimony also reveals that Mr. Rosario entertained his Usana clients even during office hours. Thus:
Q: Ang isa pang issue na ibinabato dito ay tungkol sa negosyo ni Mr. Rosario. Ito ba ang dahilan kung bakit lagi siyang wala? Ano sa pagkakaalam mo or are you aware about his business?
A: Opo.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Paano mo nalaman?
A: May mga pumupunta kasi doon tapos parang ino-orient niya, pinapakilala ang product.
Q: During office hours?
A: May time po na overtime namin. Nag-overtime ako tapos nag-overtime din siya parang may isang tao na hindi ko kilala, in-orient niya, so doon ko na-anong kumukuha siya ng parang under niya.
Atty. Mananes
Q: Ano ba sa pagkakaalam mo ang business niya?
A: Yung Usana po. Multi-vitamins.
Q: Nag-pa-product demo din ba siya?
A: Opo, nung overtime po.
Q: Once lang ba nangyari 'yun?
A: Once lang po.
Q: During office hours, may encounter ka din ba?
A: During office hours, may mga pumupunta din po pero lumalabas po sila hindi dun mismo sa opisina.30 (Emphasis supplied)
Again, this fact is corroborated by Sanchez's Sworn Statement:
Q: In-assume mo na 'yung business niya ang dahilan kung bakit palagi siyang wala sa opisina?
A: Opo. Marami kasi siyang kinuhang member. Marami siyang kinakausap sa office.
Q: During office hours?
A: Opo.31 (Emphasis supplied)
Canon IV, Section 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel provides:
SECTION 1. Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours. (Emphasis supplied)
It is established that Mr. Rosario dedicated a portion of his office hours to attend to his personal errands.
Canon IV, Section 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel requires complete devotion to public service during office hours. 32 Further, Mr. Rosario's use of office hours for personal errands went as far as disrupting the flow of his co-employees' work. ASEcHI
Subparagraph (c) found in the fourth paragraph of Section 22, Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 provides:
The following are light offenses with their corresponding penalties:
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Violation of reasonable office rules and regulations
1st offense — Reprimand
2nd offense — Suspension for one (1) to thirty (30) days
3rd offense — Dismissal
For Mr. Rosario's violation of the rule that all office hours must be devoted exclusively to official functions, this court adopts the penalty of reprimand imposed on Mr. Rosario.
For Agsi, we find no substantial evidence to support the charges against him. Supangan testified that there was no instance that she noticed Agsi checking papers. 33 She also testified that while there were times that she saw Agsi reading accounting books, it was an assumption that Agsi was reading them to prepare for his class. 34 She did not take into consideration that Agsi might also be reading the books to update himself as the head of the Disbursement Section. 35 Regarding the allegation that Agsi failed to call the attention of Mr. Rosario, Mr. Rosario himself testified that Agsi advised him to lessen his absences and observe punctuality. 36
There is also no substantial evidence to support the charge against Sumpo. Mr. Rosario testified that Sumpo talked to him regarding his absences and tardiness on more than one occasion. 37 He also testified that Sumpo advised him against his prolonged use of the phone. 38
Lastly, this court finds no substantial evidence to support the charges against Mrs. Rosario. Unlike in her husband's case, there was no evidence presented to support the claim that she was frequently absent or tardy or that she used office hours to attend to her personal errands.
WHEREFORE, this court ADOPTS the recommendation of the Office of Administrative Services. Leonardo C. Rosario, Jr. is REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that any act or acts of similar nature shall be dealt with more severely in the future. The Complaint against Claudio C. Agsi and Atty. Gilda A. Sumpo is DISMISSED for lack of evidence. Further, the case against Myra D. Rosario is DISMISSED for lack of evidence.
SO ORDERED."
(Carpio, J., on official leave; Brion, J., designated Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 2222; and Peralta, J., designated Acting Member per S.O. No. 2223, both dated September 29, 2015.)
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COURT PERSONNEL, canon 4, sec. 1.
2. Rollo, p. 210, Letter-Complaint.
3. Id. at 1-2. The Memorandum dated November 13, 2014, addressed to Atty. Enriqueta E. Vidal, Clerk of Court, was penned by Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer.
4. Id. at 107, Sworn Statement of Claudio C. Agsi dated July 2, 2013.
5. Id. at 1, Memorandum for Atty. Enriqueta E. Vidal dated November 13, 2014.
6. Id. at 210, Letter-Complaint.
7. Id. at 2, Memorandum for Atty. Enriqueta E. Vidal dated November 13, 2014.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 206-209.
10. Id. at 3.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Id. at 4.
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id. at 5.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Id. at 8.
21. Id. at 7.
22. Id. at 6.
23. Id. at 12.
24. Id. at 2.
25. Id. at 26, Sworn Statement of Virginia S. Supangan dated October 21, 2014.
26. Id. at 27.
27. Id. at 28.
28. Id. at 43.
29. Id. at 52-53, Sworn Statement of Rossana F. Sanchez dated July 11, 2013.
30. Id. at 32-33, Sworn Statement of Virginia S. Supangan dated October 21, 2014.
31. Id. at 58, Sworn Statement of Rossana F. Sanchez dated July 11, 2013.
32. Anonymous v. Grande, 539 Phil. 1, 8 (2006) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
33. Rollo, p. 38, Sworn Testimony of Virginia S. Supangan dated October 21, 2014.
34. Id. at 37.
35. Id.
36. Id. at 144, Sworn Testimony of Leonardo Rosario, Jr. dated October 22, 2014.
37. Id. at 143-144.
38. Id. at 145.