FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. 2019-19-SC. June 10, 2020.]
RE: UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCE OF FRANCIS H. CERVANTES, RECORDS OFFICER III, RECORDS DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES-OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR (OAS-OCA) FROM THE TEAM BUILDING SEMINAR WORKSHOP OF THE OAS-OCA IN BAGUIO CITY CONDUCTED ON OCTOBER 25-27, 2019
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 10, 2020which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. 2019-19-SC — Re: Unauthorized Absence of Francis H. Cervantes, Records Officer III, Records Division, Office of the Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator (OAS-OCA) from the Team Building Seminar Workshop of the OAS-OCA in Baguio City Conducted on October 25-27, 2019
Before us is an administrative matter which stemmed from a Memorandum 1 dated January 2, 2020 submitted by Atty. Maria Carina M. Cunanan (Atty. Cunanan), Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, Office of Administrative Services (OAS), recommending that Francis H. Cervantes (Cervantes) be found guilty of Simple Misconduct for the second time, and be suspended for six months without pay and be directed to reimburse the amount of P8,766.67 for his inclusion in the Team Building Seminar Workshop of the OAS-Office of the Court Administrator (OAS-OCA).
Factual Antecedents
The Team Building Seminar-Workshop (Seminar) for the OAS-OCA was held on October 25-27, 2019 in Baguio Country Club (BCC), Baguio City. 2
Gavino N. Sagarino, Supreme Court (SC) Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Employee Training and Development Division, OAS, made a Memorandum dated October 28, 2019 for Atty. Cunanan containing a Summary Report on the Seminar, where Cervantes left the venue of the OAS-OCA Team Building. 3
In the said Report, it was stated that on October 21, 2019, Monday, at around 8:30 a.m. Reslie Coleen Bulilan (Bulilan), Aphrodite Gellie Villanueva and Ryan Acoba went to the Records Division, OAS-OCA to administer the drawing of lots for the room arrangement for the Seminar. Respondent Cervantes informed Bulilan that he is not joining the SC shuttle bus in going to Baguio City and back to Manila and he might not sleep at BCC because he will have companions going to Baguio City. However, Bulilan encouraged Cervantes to avail of the accommodation because it goes with a free breakfast and he still could use the room when he needs it, to which he agreed. 4
At around 11:00 a.m., Romeo Agudelo (Agudelo) saw Cervantes at the comfort room after the morning break, where he was talking with someone over the phone and he interrupted his call asking Agudelo, "Ano ang pagkain sa lunch?," to which Agudelo replied: "Hindi ko pa nakita." Cervantes then told Agudelo "Gusto ko nang umalis" and Agudelo told him "Huwag kang umalis kasi nakamonitor tayo. May mga cctvs all over the BCC hanggang gate." Cervantes replied: "Sa labas nalang ako kakain dahil hindi ko gusto ang pagkain dito."5
At around 1:00-1:30 p.m., Atty. Cunanan called for the participants to count-off before the start of the afternoon session since there were some participants who were not feeling well since Day 1 and found out that Cervantes was not around and nobody knew about his whereabouts. 6
Atty. Cunanan informed the OAS-OCA, after consulting over the mobile phone with Atty. Edgardo Aricheta, Clerk of Court, and Court Administrator Midas P. Marquez, that she will not permit Cervantes to continue joining the Seminar because of this incident and requested that the room keys be changed and to prohibit Cervantes from entering BCC for the activity. 7
Atty. Cunanan sent a Memorandum dated October 28, 2019 to Cervantes directing him to explain in writing within five days from receipt why no administrative disciplinary action should be taken against him for abandoning the activity and to refund the amount of P8,767.00, which constitutes the expense allocated and incurred by the Court for his participation in the Seminar. 8
On November 4, 2019, Cervantes filed his answer to the Memorandum dated October 28, 2019, stating that before the scheduled team building, he was feeling ill. He was given a medical prescription for anxiety by Dr. Rory V. Tianzon-Franco of the Medical and Dental Services Office of the SC. He averred that on the second day or on October 26, 2019 of the Team Building Seminar, before he had his lunch, his anxiety attacked. Because of this, he went out of the club to calm himself. When he felt better and since the seminar resumes at 1:30 p.m., he decided to take his lunch. 9
At around 1:00 p.m., he took a cab going back to the venue and got stuck in heavy traffic because one of the main roads was closed. While inside the taxi, he received a message from his co-worker telling him not to return and instead go back home to Manila as per order of Atty. Cunanan. He further stated that he decided to stay to finish the seminar, however, he learned that the key to their room was changed. Hence, he had nowhere to stay and his budget won't allow him so he was forced to go back to Manila. 10
Cervantes further emphasized that in almost 23 years in service, he had not intentionally disobeyed any order from his superiors nor did he put the name of the institution to shame. 11
The OAS, through Atty. Cunanan, sent a Memorandum, addressed to Atty. Edgar O. Aricheta, dated January 2, 2020 to the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc, SC, which provides her findings, evaluations and recommendations regarding the unauthorized absence of Cervantes. 12
Atty. Cunanan emphasized that as per the October 28, 2019 debriefing of the Training Division of the OAS, it was documented that as early as October 21, 2019, or four days prior to the seminar, Cervantes informed the Training Division personnel that he would not be utilizing the provided SC shuttle bus nor will he be staying at the BCC during his participation in the seminar, because he will be going with other companions to Baguio City. Cervantes was nevertheless prevailed upon by the Training Division personnel to accept a triple sharing room assignment even if he had no intention to spend the nights there, as he could avail of the provided meals and have an onsite room to use if he needed it. 13
Atty. Cunanan also noted that at around 11:00 a.m. of the second day, as per the Training Division staff, Cervantes stated that he already wanted to leave, and that he would rather eat somewhere else as he did not like the quality of the food being served. Despite being cautioned by the training staff that it was against the rules, Cervantes could no longer be located after the headcount when the sessions resumed in the afternoon. 14
Atty. Cunanan did not give credence to the explanation of Cervantes and concluded that the latter intentionally slipped away to spend time enjoying himself in other pursuits with his undisclosed companion(s) in Baguio City, but did not or could not make it back in time before being discovered. Atty. Cunanan further concluded that Cervantes' malingering from the Seminar is tantamount to the administrative offense of Simple Misconduct, as the act consisted of a transgression of an established rule of action and unlawful behavior that was not qualified by corruption, willful intent to violate the law or disregard established rules. 15
Atty. Cunanan stressed that Cervantes has already been administratively sanctioned several times in the past, contrary to Cervantes' claim that in his years of service he has never put the Court to shame. 16
The Court's Ruling
We agree with the findings of the OAS that respondent Cervantes is guilty of Simple Misconduct for leaving the Seminar without a valid excuse or justification.
In ExecutiveJudge Loyao, Jr. v. Armecin, 17 we found two employees, a Utility Worker I and a Utility Worker II, of Regional Trial Court, Leyte, Branch 24, guilty of misconduct for leaving the office for personal purposes without asking permission from their superior. We ruled:
Since the administration of justice is a sacred task the persons involved in it ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty, integrity and uprightness. It bears stressing once again that public service requires utmost integrity and the strictest discipline possible of every public servant. A public office is a public trust that enjoins all public officers and employees, particularly those serving in the judiciary, to respond with the highest degree of dedication often even beyond personal interest. In this regard, it must be borne in mind that —
[x x x] the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct and, official or otherwise, of the men and women. from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel, hence, it becomes the imperative sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice.
The conduct and behavior of every person connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but also, and above all else, be above suspicion.
All too often, this Court has declared that any act which falls short of the exacting standards for public office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the judiciary, shall not be countenanced. To reiterate, public office is a public trust. Public officers must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. 18 (Citations omitted)
Due to the nature and functions of their office, officials and employees of the judiciary must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust. Inherent in this mandate is the observance of the prescribed office hours and efficient use of every moment for public service, if only to recompense the government, and ultimately, the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the judiciary. Thus, to inspire public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees are, at all times, behooved to strictly observe official time. 19
As correctly pointed out by the OAS, the seminar of this Court is a compulsory training activity, and considered to be on official working time of the participants. This Court stresses the fact that expenses were incurred by the Government to shoulder the costs of including respondent in the said Seminar. The least that respondent could do is to attend the Seminar and participate. Instead, respondent chose to surreptitiously leave the venue for his personal purposes, without a valid excuse and without informing his superiors, to the prejudice of this institution. The conduct of respondent reflects unprofessional behavior, which is unacceptable for employees of the Judiciary.
We find the explanation of respondent unsatisfactory. Respondent claims that his anxiety attacked, he felt dizzy, his heartbeat palpitated and his head ached, therefore he went out of the club to calm himself. Noteworthy are the following observations from the OAS-OCA:
On the assumption that the respondent was truly assailed by a bout of severe anxiety, the foremost thing to do is to take his medication, which he said he brought with him. Second to that is to seek the assistance of people around him. He was not in some desolate place, as there were 174 other participants in the seminar, as well as the SC training staff club employees and club members who were also in the vicinity. Moreover, an exclusive club of that stature has a doctor on call for the timely medical assistance of guests.
Granting that his judgment was impaired, or that he needed to be alone for a moment, it is improbable that he would manage to wander off the grounds of the vast, thirty[-]two (32) hectare property in that state, unless he deliberately sought to leave it. x x x
x x x This conclusion is further bolstered by his statement that he needed to take a taxi back in his alleged attempt to return. That indicates that he was a considerable distance away (not walking distance) from the facility, which is inconsistent with the behavior of a person who simply needed space to recompose himself, whether fully in control of his emotions or not. 20
We agree with the OAS-OCA that the act of respondent is tantamount to the administrative offense of Simple Misconduct, which is defined as an unacceptable behavior which transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers, work-related or not. 21
Under Section 46 (D) (2), Rule 10 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the penalty for simple misconduct is suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense.
We also take note of the fact that respondent was already suspended for one month and one day for Simple Misconduct in A.M. No. 2006-18-SC on September 5, 2006, when he arrogantly boasted about his connections with officers of the Court, and the power he wielded as an employee of the Court in connection with allegations of acts of dishonesty committed by him in his private affairs. 22
The penalty for the second offense of Simple Misconduct is dismissal from the service, however, we find that such extreme penalty is unwarranted in this case. The OAS recommended the penalty of suspension for six months. This Court takes note of the fact that respondent has in his favor as mitigating circumstance his long years of service. We deem it proper and sufficient to impose the penalty of one month suspension without pay for his current infraction. Further, as recommended by the OAS, this Court also finds it proper for respondent to refund the training expenses in the amount of P8,766.67, as certified by the Employee Training and Development Division of the OAS.
WHEREFORE, Francis H. Cervantes, Records Officer III, Records Division, Office of Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator is hereby SUSPENDED without pay for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day. He is ORDERED to REFUND the training expenses in the amount of P8,766.67. He is further WARNED that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely by this Court.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-5.
2.Id. at 15-16.
3.Id. at 13-14.
4.Id. at 13.
5.Supra note 3.
6.Rollo, p. 14.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 11.
9.Id. at 6.
10.Id. at 6-7.
11.Id. at 7.
12.Supra note 1.
13.Rollo, p. 2.
14.Id. at 2-3.
15.Id. at 4.
16. Id.
17. 391 Phil. 715 (2000).
18. Id. at 720-721.
19. Escaño v. Manaois, 799 Phil. 622, 638 (2016).
20. Rollo, pp. 3-4.
21. Abulencia v. Hermosisima, 712 Phil. 248, 252 (2013).
22. Re: Rivara's Compound Homeowners' Association v. Cervantes, 532 Phil. 462, 470 (2006).