SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. 2018-02-SC. June 19, 2019.]
RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT FROM A "LOWER COURT EMPLOYEE" AGAINST MS. IRMA G. PARAISO, RECORDS OFFICER III, RECORDS DIVISION, OAS-OCA
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated19 June 2019which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. 2018-02-SC — RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT FROM A "LOWER COURT EMPLOYEE" AGAINST MS. IRMA G. PARAISO, RECORDS OFFICER III, RECORDS DIVISION, OAS-OCA
An undated anonymous letter-complaint, 1 written in the vernacular and addressed to the "Chief, Administrative Services," was received by the Office of the Administrative Services (OAS) against respondent Ms. Irma G. Paraiso (Ms. Paraiso), Records Officer III, Records Division, OAS, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for not acting promptly on a "lower court employee's" request for service record. 2 The said letter-complaint reads as follows:
Nais ko po sanang idulog sa inyong tanggapan ang aking sinapit at reklamo sa isang empleyado ng records Division na in-charge sa NCR-METC. Ako po ay pinaghintay [nang] matagal at ang nakaka high blood po mas inuna pa niya ang personal na gawain kesa asikasuhin ang paghihingi ko ng Service Record. Ito po ay nangyari noong nakaraang linggo, araw ng Miyerkules, November 29, 2017. Kahit binanggit na sa nagngangalan at tinawag na Boss Irma na kasalukuyang nagpapalinis ng paa, di pa din ako agad naasikaso. Kayo sa sama ng loob ko lumapit po ako at sikreto [kong] kinuhanan ng shots dahil sa aking palagay ang ganitong gawain ay hindi dapat kinukunsinti. Nais ko po sanang mabigyan ng leksyon ang ganitong gawain para di na maulit pa sa iba. Paumanhin po so hindi ko paglantad.3
Attached to the said letter-complaint are five different screenshots of a video recording with time and date stamp, showing Ms. Paraiso having her nails attended to by a pedicurist. 4 In a Memorandum 5 dated January 10, 2018, the Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, Eden T. Candelaria, directed Ms. Paraiso to comment on the said letter-complaint. 6
In a Memorandum 7 dated January 12, 2018, Ms. Paraiso alleged that: she remembers the day alleged in the complaint since she was in great pain due to her ingrown nail; however, she could not recall any request for a service record that was not acted upon immediately; she could not file a leave of absence on that day because she was designated as the Division's Officer-in-Charge (OIC) in view of the official leave of the Division Chief, Ms. Gloria Rosario (Ms. Rosario); she asked a pedicurist to attend to her during lunch break, but the latter was only available before 12:00 noon; since she could not bear the pain any longer, she had her ingrown nail removed 20 minutes before lunch break; she took full responsibility for her error in judgment and asked for compassion in view of her 30 years of service. 8
In defense of Ms. Paraiso, Ms. Rosario submitted a Memorandum 9 dated January 19, 2018, alleging that: when she asked the service record processors, they could not recall any request for service record by "lower court employee" that was not attended to immediately; in the 11 months that Ms. Paraiso was in-charge of the service record of all judges and employees of the Metropolitan Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, in addition to her responsibilities as Chief of the Receiving and Releasing (Mailing) Section, she has not been remiss in her duties as service record processor and she has not let any lower court employee wait for a long time before acting on a request for service record; from January 2006 to July 2015, the Receiving and Releasing (Mailing) Section had been functioning well because of the efficient and effective supervision of Ms. Paraiso; she was not condoning Ms. Paraiso's action of having her ingrown nail removed during office hours at 11:42 a.m., but she hoped that this lapse of judgment would not demerit Ms. Paraiso's good standing and very satisfactory performance in her 30 years of service in the judiciary. 10
The narration in Ms. Rosario's Memorandum was attested to and signed by the personnel of the Records Division, OAS-OCA in a letter 11 dated January 19, 2018. In a Supplemental Answer 12 dated January 23, 2018, Ms. Paraiso reiterated her defense stated in her previous Memorandum, and further alleged that: based on the Office's "Compliance Work Sheet" which contains the names of visitors/requesting parties, including the date, time and purpose of the visit/request, a certain Mark Anthony Decena (Decena) of the Sandiganbayan was the only visitor around the time shown in the screenshots; however, Decena requested the service record of a certain Angeli Soriano at 11:46 a.m., while the time stamp on the screenshots attached to the instant complaint is 11:42 a.m.; this discrepancy thus casts doubt on the veracity of the alleged delay in the processing of the request for service record; thus, the instant anonymous complaint should be dismissed; furthermore, she expressed remorse and repentance for having her ingrown nail removed during office hours, and humbly appealed to the Court's compassion. 13
In a Memorandum 14 dated September 18, 2018, the OAS found that: Ms. Paraiso's alleged failure to promptly act on a request for service record was not substantiated, thus, the complaint should be dismissed; however, when she had her ingrown nail removed during office hours, she failed to strictly observe the prescribed working hours. 15 Thus, the OAS recommended that she be severely reprimanded with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with severely. 16 The OAS cited Lopena v. Saloma, 17 where the Court stressed that public officials and employees must observe the prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment thereof for public service if only to recompense the government and ultimately the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the judiciary. 18 The OAS also cited Roman v. Fortaleza, 19 where the Court reiterated that: court personnel must devote every moment of official time to public service; the conduct and behavior of court personnel should be characterized by a high degree of professionalism and responsibility, as they mirror the image of the court; and that court personnel must strictly observe official time to inspire public respect for the justice system. 20 Moreover, Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel 21 provides that they shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.
In view of the foregoing and after due consideration, the Court hereby adopts the OAS findings and recommendation.
WHEREFORE, for failure to strictly observe the prescribed working hours, the Court hereby severely REPRIMANDS Ms. Irma G. Paraiso, Records Officer III, Records Division, OAS-OCA, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with severely.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 29.
2.Id.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 2, 31-35.
5.Id. at 28.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 26-27.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 17-18.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 16.
12.Id. at 8-15. "SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER WITH REITERATION TO THE ULTIMATE FACTS."
13.Id.
14.Id. at 1-7.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 7.
17. 567 Phil. 217 (2008).
18.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
19. 650 Phil. 1 (2010).
20.Rollo, p. 6.
21. Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, May 15, 2004.