Tarroza v. Caingles

THIRD DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-18-3815. February 28, 2018.]

TEOTIMA C. TARROZA, complainant,vs. REMY L. CAINGLES, CLERK III, BRANCH 4, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BUTUAN CITY, AGUSAN DEL NORTE, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 28, 2018, which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. P-18-3815 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-4221-P] (Teotima C. Tarroza, complainant v. Remy L. Caingles, Clerk III, Branch 4, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, respondent.) — An employee of the judiciary who falsifies his or her Daily Time Record is administratively liable for serious dishonesty. ASEcHI

This case involves the Affidavit-Complaint 1 of Teotima C. Tarroza (Tarroza) against Remy L. Caingles (Caingles), Clerk III of Branch 4, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte. Tarroza charged Caingles with "Falsification of Public Documents and Gross Dishonesty; Tardiness Amounting to Grave Misconduct; Flagrant and Intentional Violation of Civil Service Laws, Rules and Regulation[s] Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service; Conduct Detrimental to Public Service; and Conduct Unbecoming of a Government Employee." 2 The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that respondent be found guilty of serious dishonesty for failing to accurately state in her Daily Time Record her departure time from the office on February 23, 2011. 3

Complainant Tarroza previously worked as Legal Researcher II of Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, while respondent Caingles was a Clerk III of the same court. 4

On January 24, 2014, Tarroza filed an Affidavit-Complaint 5 against Caingles for "Falsification of Public Documents and Gross Dishonesty; Tardiness Amounting to Grave Misconduct, Flagrant and Intentional Violation of Civil Service Laws, Rules and Regulation[s] Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service; Conduct Detrimental to Public Service; and Conduct Unbecoming of a Government Employee[.]" 6

Complainant alleged that respondent committed falsification of public documents and gross dishonesty when the latter failed to report in her Daily Time Record that she left the office at 3:00 p.m. on February 22, 2011 and 3:15 p.m. on February 23, 2011 but did not return on both dates. 7

To support her allegations, Tarroza attached with her Complaint the pass slips 8 of Caingles for February 22 and 23 of 2011 signed by the Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Noreen A. Villaroman-Ato (Atty. Ato). Written on the upper right hand side of these slips were the words "did not return." 9 Complainant also attached a copy of their attendance logbook 10 during the two dates where respondent wrote that she left the office at 5:00 p.m. on February 22, 2011 and left blank the departure time for February 23, 2011. However, on respondent's Daily Time Record 11 for February 2011, it showed that she left the office at 5:00 p.m. on both dates. 12 ITAaHc

Complainant also claimed that respondent incurred the following undertime/tardiness, through the use of pass slips, which were not reflected in her Daily Time Records: 13

 

For 2010:	July	-	Eleven (11) times
	August	-	Eleven (11) times
For 2011:	February	-	Thirteen (13) times
	May	-	Twelve (12) times
	December	-	Thirteen (13) times
For 2012:	May	-	Twelve (12) times
	July	-	Twelve (12) times 14

 

Complainant explained that Atty. Ato allowed Branch 4 employees to leave their post for not more than two (2) hours per day to attend to official or personal matters by using a pass slip. Respondent allegedly abused this when she used the pass slips for 257 times within a span of only 2 1/2 years or from 2010 to 2012. There were also days when respondent would leave the office twice by using pass slips. Respondent's excessive use of pass slips was not indicated in her Daily Time Records. 15

Complainant further alleged that respondent was a gossipmonger who spread defamatory and humiliating lies about other court employees and judges, including complainant and her husband. Respondent purportedly conveyed the appearance of being "untouchable" as she knew many lawyers and had rich relatives. There were also times that respondent supposedly interfered with complainant's work as Legal Researcher. Lastly, complainant claimed that respondent pressured a counsel of one of the litigants of Branch 4 to deliver pizza to their office in exchange for the release of papers the counsel requested. 16 cSaATC

On March 11, 2014, respondent filed her Comment. 17 She admitted using pass slips on February 22 and 23 of 2011. However, she claimed that since it was past 5:00 p.m. when she returned on both dates, Atty. Ato had already left the office. Respondent said she was able to log out on February 22, 2011, but failed to log out on February 23, 2011 as she was in a rush to check her work and left immediately thereafter. 18

Respondent added that the number of tardiness cited by complainant was erroneous. Only the following pass slips were used for personal matters: 19

 

For 2010:	July	-	Six (6) times
	August	-	Five (5) times
For 2011:	February	-	Six (6) times
	May	-	Seven (7) times
	December	-	Seven (7) times
For 2012:	May	-	Nine (9) times
	July	-	Two (2) times 20

 

Based on the numbers above, respondent contended that she cannot be held liable for grave misconduct 21 as she "did not incur tardiness or undertime for at least ten times a month for two consecutive months or for two months in a semester." 22 CHTAIc

On her failure to report the pass slips in her Daily Time Records, respondent believed in good faith that it was not necessary as it was common practice in the workplace not to indicate pass slips in the Daily Time Records. She pointed out that she was not reprimanded by her superiors for doing the same. 23

Respondent likewise denied being a gossiper. She stated that she neither mocked nor insulted complainant or her husband. She said there was no reason for her to vex them considering they seldom interacted. She also denied interfering with complainant's work since she did not even know what duties a legal researcher performs. 24

On the allegation of food solicitation, respondent asserted that complainant "completely exaggerated the incident[.]" 25 Respondent explained that the counsel being referred to, Atty. Roy Orlando Doyon (Atty. Doyon), was a close family friend who was the former Clerk of Court of Branch 4. Their closeness made it easy for respondent to joke with Atty. Doyon. Moreover, respondent claimed it was Atty. Doyon who offered to send pizza to the employees of Branch 4 since they could not attend the celebration of his town fiesta. 26 cHDAIS

Respondent countered that it was actually complainant who should be administratively liable for dishonesty and falsification. Respondent cited instances wherein complainant would take a half-day leave yet her Daily Time Records showed that she was present the whole day. There were also several times that complainant would leave her post without securing a pass slip. Complainant likewise failed to indicate her pass slips in her Daily Time Records. 27

Respondent claimed that complainant should likewise be liable for conduct unbecoming a government employee for exhibiting hostility toward Court Stenographer III Consuelo T. Montero, retired Court Interpreter Anecita Bulingit, and Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Ato. Furthermore, respondent said that complainant was known to misconstrue any remark made to her. Thus, Branch 4 employees were not keen on interacting with her unless it was work-related. 28

On May 13, 2014, the Office of the Court Administrator received respondent's Rejoinder dated May 2, 2014, in response to complainant's Affidavit dated March 20, 2014. The Court Administrator ordered complainant to submit a copy of her affidavit, otherwise the administrative case would be resolved based on the existing records. 29

On August 13, 2015, the Court Administrator recommended the complaint to "be referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, for investigation, report, and recommendation[.]" 30 ISHCcT

In a Resolution 31 dated February 24, 2016, this Court noted the Report and Recommendation of the Court Administrator and referred the complaint to the Executive Judge of Butuan City Regional Trial Court.

Then Executive Judge Eduardo S. Casals handled the case until his term as Executive Judge ended. Thereafter, Executive Judge Emmanuel E. Escatron (Executive Judge Escatron) took over. 32 DHITCc

In the October 26, 2016 hearing, complainant's husband appeared as her counsel. He explained that complainant already resigned from work since January 1, 2014. He also informed the court that complainant could not testify as she had recently suffered a minor stroke. 33 He then made a manifestation that "the case be submitted for decision based on the original records and without the testimony of his wife." 34 Respondent did not object. Hence, Executive Judge Escatron ordered the parties to submit their memoranda. 35 Respondent filed her Position Paper, 36 which contained a rehash of her arguments and allegations in her Comment. 37

On December 22, 2016, Executive Judge Escatron issued a Resolution 38 finding respondent guilty of dishonesty for stating in her February 2011 Daily Time Record that she left the office at 5:00 p.m. on February 22 and 23 of 2011, instead of 3:00 p.m. and 3:15 p.m., respectively. 39 With respect to the numerous pass slips that respondent used to attend to official or personal matters, Executive Judge Escatron held that these were "duly approved by her immediate superior." 40

Meanwhile, Executive Judge Escatron also found complainant guilty of dishonesty for the false departure times she indicated in her April 2013 and September 2013 Daily Time Records. However, since complainant already resigned, the court no longer had jurisdiction over her. 41

The dispositive portion of the trial court's Resolution read:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the court finds respondent Remy L. Caingles guilty of dishonesty for making false and inaccurate entries in her Daily Time Record for the month of February 2011 and the undersigned most respectfully recommends to the Honorable Supreme Court that she be meted with a penalty of a FINE of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (PhP10,000.00) with stern warning that repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely. 42 cEaSHC

On May 17, 2017, the Office of the Court Administrator issued its Report and Recommendation 43 finding respondent guilty of serious dishonesty for failing to accurately state her departure time from the office on February 23, 2011. 44 However, it ruled that respondent could not be held liable for excessive undertime since there was no evidence showing that she incurred "undertime ten (10) times a month for at least [two] (2) months at any given semester or year." 45 Complainant's other allegations against respondent also remained unsubstantiated. 46

The Office of the Court Administrator reduced the fine from P10,000.00 to P5,000.00 due to the existence of mitigating circumstances. It found that it was respondent's first administrative case after working in the judiciary for 33 years. 47 It also found that respondent "demonstrated a very satisfactory performance and service to the public." 48 Lastly, it ruled the harm inflicted on the government to be minor since the misstatement was only for one (1) hour and 45 minutes. 49 IAETDc

Thus, the sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not respondent Remy L. Caingles is liable for serious dishonesty for failing to state in the Daily Time Record her correct departure time on February 23, 2011.

This Court has repeatedly held that dishonesty "has no place in the judiciary." 50 It is a malevolent act that constitutes a serious offense. 51 Dishonesty, to merit disciplinary action, is 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." 52

In the case at bar, the findings of the Court Administrator that respondent was dishonest with respect to her February 2011 Daily Time Record is well-taken. As reported by the Court Administrator: CTIEac

In this case, respondent Caingles failed to comply with her duty to "truthfully and accurately" indicate in her DTR the time of her arrival in and departure from the office. She admitted that on 23 February 2011, she left the office at 3:15 in the afternoon to attend to an "importantmatter." It is without quibble that she did not return to the office because 'Branch Clerk of Court Ato put a remark on her pass slip stating that she "did not return." However, respondent Caingles indicated in her DTR that on 23 February 2011, she left the office at 5:00 in the afternoon.

This Office does not lend credence to respondent Caingles' insistence that she returned to the office at 5:00 in the afternoon and that Atty. Ato did not see her as the latter had already left the office. The court logbook revealed that there was no entry under the "time-out"' column on the aforesaid date. It is exceedingly improbable that respondent Caingles returned to the office and signed the logbook, but did not put the time of her departure from the office. Her falsification of her DTR in her attempt to conceal the fact that she, indeed, did not return to the office constitutes patent dishonesty . . . To be sure, respondent Caingles' act clearly demonstrated her incapacity to serve the public with probity, responsibility and honesty, and proven her unworthiness to remain in the judiciary. 53 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted) DcHSEa

Respondent failed to adduce evidence to substantiate her claim that she returned past 5:00 p.m. on February 23, 2011. She did not present an affidavit of anyone who could have seen her return on that day. Respondent could have informed Atty. Ato the following day of her return so that the necessary changes in her pass slip could be made, but she failed to do so. Having no leg to stand on, her claim would necessarily fail.

In Samonte v. Roden, 54 this Court held that "[f]alsification of daily time records is an act of dishonesty, for which respondent must be held administratively liable." 55 The penalty for dishonesty is dismissal from service. Nonetheless, this Court has the discretion to mitigate the penalty to be imposed based on the circumstances of the case.

In Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Gutierrez III, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 116, Pasay City, 56 this Court imposed the fine of P5,000.00 as penalty since the respondent in that case admitted to falsifying his Daily Time Record and it was his first offense during his five (5) years of government service. 57 Here, the records of the Court Administrator show that this is respondent's first administrative offense in her 33 years of service in the judiciary. Respondent was also consistently given a "very satisfactory" performance rating, which shows that despite the use of pass slips, she was able to maintain her above par work performance. These circumstances warrant the imposition of a lower penalty.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Remy L. Caingles, Clerk III, Branch 4, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, GUILTY of serious dishonesty for making a false and inaccurate entry in her Daily Time Record for the month of February 2011. She is hereby FINED in the amount of P5,000.00, with a STERNWARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely. SCaITA

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-10.

2.Id. at 3.

3.Id. at 571 and 573, Office of the Court Administrator Report and Recommendation dated May 17, 2017.

4.Id. at 566.

5.Id. at 3-10.

6.Id. at 3.

7.Id. at 3-4.

8.Id. at 12-13.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 15.

11.Id. at 14.

12.Id. at 3-4.

13.Id. at 4-5.

14.Id. at 5.

15. Id. at 5-6.

16. Id. at 6-8.

17. Id. at 325-343.

18. Id. at 325-326.

19. Id. at 327-329.

20. Id. at 329.

21. Id.

22. Id.

23. Id. at 330-331.

24. Id. at 332.

25. Id. at 337.

26. Id. at 337-338.

27. Id. at 326 and 330.

28 Id. at 333-337.

29. Id. at 509, Office of the Court Administrator letter dated August 8, 2014.

30. Id. at 513, Office of the Court Administrator Report and Recommendation dated August 13, 2015.

31. Id. at 514-515.

32. Id. at 569, Office of the Court Administrator Report and Recommendation dated May 17, 2017.

33. Id.

34. Id.

35. Id.

36. Id. at 517-531.

37. Id. at 569, Office of the Court Administrator Report and Recommendation dated May 17, 2017.

38. Id. at 551-564.

39. Id. at 562.

40. Id. at 563.

41. Id.

42. Id. at 564.

43. Id. at 566-573.

44. Id. at 571 and 573.

45. Id. at 570.

46.Id. at 573.

47.Id. at 572.

48Id.

49Id.

50.Judge Dojillo, Jr. v. Ching, 612 Phil. 47, 56 (2009) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Second Division]; Samonte v. Roden,A.M. No. P-13-3170, September 18, 2017. <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/september2017/P-13-3170.pdf> 4 [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].

51.Id.

52.Clerk of Court Gillamac-Ortiz v. Sheriff Almeida, Jr., 564 Phil. 19, 24 (2007) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].

53.Rollo, pp. 571-572, Office of the Court Administrator Report and Recommendation dated May 17, 2017.

54. A.M. No. P-13-3170, September 18, 2017 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/september2017/P-13-3170.pdf> [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].

55. Id. at 4-5.

56. 682 Phil. 28 (2012) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].

57. Id. at 35.