[ A.M. No. P-90-424. December 01, 1993 ] 298-A Phil. 150
FIRST DIVISION
[ A.M. No. P-90-424. December 01, 1993 ]
WENCESLAO NUEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. AGERICO BALLES, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
QUIASON, J.:
In an affidavit-complaint, Wenceslao Nuez, Treasurer/Cashier of the Leyte Metropolitan Water District, (LMWD) charged Agerico Balles, Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tacloban City, with grave misconduct relative to the enforcement of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued in Civil Case No. 90-01-008 of the Regional Trial Court Branch 7, Palo, Leyte, entitled “Local Water Utilities Administration v. Leyte Metro Water District, et al.”
Complainant alleged that at about 2:00 P.M. of March 28, 1990, he was told to go the office of the LMWD General Manager, Ranulfo Feliciano. At that office, he saw Cayo Emnas, an LMWD engineer with respondent. The latter, without identifying himself, asked complainant to surrender to him the keys to the cashier’s booth, the drawers and filing cabinets. Complainant replied that he would like first to speak with the LMWD’s legal counsel before complying with the request. Respondent then ordered the policemen with him to arrest complainant. The policemen handcuffed complainant and brought him to the Tacloban City Police Station, where he was detained until 4:45 P.M. Upon learning that the door to the cashier’s booth, as well as his drawers and filing cabinets had been forcibly opened, he decided to witness the inventory. When complainant arrived at the LMWD office, he saw that most of his records were thrown outside the cashier’s booth. Complainant was made to sign an inventory report by respondent, which he did because of fear that he would again be detained. Inasmuch as the inventory was started in his absence and he was not informed that respondent was enforcing a court order, complainant signed the report under protest.
In his comment, respondent stated that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Palo, Leyte, issued on March 5, 1990 a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against LMWD and its Board of Directors in Civil Case No. 90-01-008 (Annex “1”). The writ was issued pursuant to an earlier order dated February 21, 1990 (Annex “1-A”), directing the LMWD Board of Directors to cease and desist from further exercising its authority and to turnover to the representative of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), all the property, assets and records of LMWD.
In an order dated March 23, 1990 (Annex “3”), the same court: (i) designated respondent as special sheriff to implement the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction; (ii) authorized the LWUA representatives to open the stockroom and filing cabinets of LMWD in order to gain access to the records of LMWD, and to use such force as may be necessary; and (iii) deputized the Tacloban City Police Station Commander to assist in enforcing the writ.
Respondent alleged that the writ had been partially enforced even prior to March 28, 1990.
Respondent also alleged that a memorandum dated March 27, 1990 was issued by Cayo Emnas (Annex “4”), wherein complainant was temporarily relieved as cashier of LMWD and directed to turnover all the funds and records in his custody to Virginia Abayata. Complainant, however, refused to acknowledge receipt of a copy of the memorandum on the two occasions when it was served on him.
Respondent further claimed that when he met complainant at the LMWD premises at about 2:00 P.M. on March 28, 1990, he showed copies of the pertinent court orders and the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, as well as a copy of Emnas’ memorandum. Respondent warned complainant that he could be charged with contempt of court and with disobedience to a lawful court order if he refused to comply with the orders.
Respondent belied the allegation that the inventory was conducted in complainant’s absence. He said that the filing cabinets and drawers inside the cashier’s office were opened in the presence of complainant, his wife, Oda Feliciano Nuez, as well as three barangay officials.
Upon recommendation of the Office of Court Administrator, the complaint was referred to Judge Lolita O. Gal-lang, Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Palo City, for investigation, report and recommendation.
Proceedings initiated by Judge Gal-lang were continued by Judge Fortunato B. Operario, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Palo, Leyte and later by Judge Getulio M. Francisco, Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Tacloban City, Leyte.
In the report dated May 15, 1993, Judge Francisco recommended the exoneration of respondent. According to the report, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Polo, Leyte, issued an order dated March 6, 1990 (Exh. “14”) directing: (a) the LMWD General Manager (i) to promptly turnover the property and records of LMWD to LWUA through Cayo Emnas and (ii) to conduct an inventory of the LMWD property and records; and (b) the sheriff to immediately install LWUA in the management of LMWD.
In the Regional Trial Court’s order dated March 23, 1990, respondent was designated to implement the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Thus, he had the authority to order complainant as he did, such order being in the performance of his duty (Cf. U.S. v. Ramayrat, 22 Phil. 183 [1912]). Moreover, in previous orders, the Regional Trial Court had directed the responsible officers of LMWD to promptly turnover its property to the LWUA and to make an inventory thereof. Complainant’s refusal to comply with the court order constituted contempt (Rules of Court, Rule 71, Sec. 3[b]).
Judge Francisco found as incredible complainant’s allegation that he did not know that the management of LMWD was taken-over by the LWUA. He noted that the writ was already partially implemented, with only the inventory of the funds and records under the custody of complainant left to be done.
The inventory was conducted by respondent in the presence of complainant and his wife, two employees of LMWD and three barangay officials.
Judge Francisco also found that complainant was not actually locked-up in a jail cell. Complainant admitted that he was merely made to stay within the premises of the police station. If complainant was brought to the police station, it was because he defied a lawful court order.
The records disclose that the glass panel of the door to the cashier’s office was broken, not by respondent but by order of Emnas and that the inventory was conducted only after complainant arrived from the police station.
We find Judge Francisco’s findings to be supported by the evidence on record and we agree with his recommendation that the respondent be exonerated.
It is worth mentioning that in a resolution dated September 2, 1991 (OMB-2-90-0951), the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) dismissed the complaints for arbitrary detention, grave coercion, robbery, and violation of Section 3(a) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against respondent, Emnas and the other LMWD employees involving the same incident subject of administrative case against respondent herein (Exhs. “28-A” to “28-G”).
It may also be mentioned that the Regional Trial Court finally decided Civil Case No. 90-01-008 on September 20, 1990. In its decision, the said court upheld the right of LWUA to take over the management of the LMWD (Exh. “18”).
The Court of Appeals (Fourth Division) dismissed for lack of merit the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to set aside the Regional Trial Court order directing LMWD and its officers to turnover forthwith the possession, control and management of LMWD to LWUA (CA-G.R. SP-23171; Exh. “22”).
Instead of appealing the said resolution to the Supreme Court, LMWD and its officers filed with the Court of Appeals another petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to nullify it (CA-G.R. SP No. 24989). The Court of Appeals (Seventh Division) dismissed the petition on the ground that a division of the said appellate court cannot annul the resolution of another division thereof (Exh. “26-A”).
WHEREFORE, the affidavit-complaint filed by complainant against respondent is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.ex ‘M’), it appears that she was present (o)n those dates. Another thing noticeable in Annex ‘M’, the name under the capitalized DAILY TIME RECORD written is Marilyn A. Oribiana while the signature below is MOSaavedra; (t)his is a sign of deception, an unauthorized use of name.
d) For the month of May, 1989, it appears from the logbook that Respondent was absent on May 16, 1989 (Pls. see Annex ‘Y’) and yet in Respondent’s daily time record for the month of May, 1989 (Pls. see Annex ‘N’) it appears that she was present on that date.
e) For the month of June, 1989, it appears from the logbook that Respondent was absent on June 5, 1989 (Pls. see Annex ‘Z’) and yet in Respondent’s daily time record for the month of June, 1989 (Pls. see Annex ‘O’) it appears that she was present on that date;
f) For the month of July, 1989, it appears from the logbook that Respondent was absent on July 10, 11, 12 and 28, 1989 (Pls. see Annexes ‘AA’ and ‘AA-1’) and yet in Respondent’s daily time record for the month of July, 1989 (Pls. see Annex ‘Q’) it appears that she was present on those dates.
g) For the month of August, 1989 the name Marilyn A. Oribiana was typewritten below the capitalized words “DAILY TIME RECORD” and respondent’s signature below is MOSaavedra; this is a sign of deception and an unauthorized use of name in public record."[5]
x x x
In her Comment,[6] respondent averred, inter alia:
“3. That as with regards (sic) to the undersigned’s entries in her daily time record, that as far as her knowledge is concerned, the undersigned reported for duty on such dates and that the log book for (sic) which the complainant allegedly based his accusations is treated more of (sic) as his ‘Diary’ than a log book considering that the court personnel are not putting their time in and out regularly, but only when the complainant wants us to do so.
“4. That if the undersigned committed an error in making her entries in her daily time record (which she does not admit) she did not have the intention to commit ‘falsification’ in her daily time record considering that in her thirteen (13) years of service in the judiciary x x x, the undersigned has accumulated earned leave credits, and it would surely suffice to cover up for her absences, if she undergoes the same. x x x At this point in time, the undersigned is not ashamed to admit that she is presently begging for help and financial assistance from her parents, and sisters (who are living abroad) in order for them to survive, that would leave us the question of, “WHY THEN WOULD SHE PUT HER ENTIRE FUTURE & CAREER AND THAT OF HER CHILDREN AT STAKE” just for that issue which can be well covered by her earned leave credits? x x x."
In a resolution dated July 25, 1990,[7] this Court, on the recommendation of then Court Administrator Meynardo A. Tiro,[8] referred the case to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati for investigation, report and recommendation. In said investigation, Atty. Mirano testified on his complaint. Respondent Saavedra merely submitted a sworn statement dated April 2, 1993.[9] Thereafter, Executive Judge Salvador S. Abad Santos submitted his report, dated May 26, 1993,[10] recommending the dismissal of respondent from the service after finding the latter guilty of falsifying her DTRs.
We agree with the findings of the investigating judge. A perusal of respondent’s DTRs in question readily show that, purportedly, she had not incurred any absences from March, 1989 up to and until August, 1989.[11] This is the reason why, when she submitted her DTRs to Judge Salvador P. de Guzman for signature and certification, she did not attach any application for leave form. After affixing his signature thereon, Judge de Guzman, doubting the veracity of respondent’s DTRs, immediately informed Atty. Mirano of his suspicions. Upon verification with the court personnel’s logbook which was in the custody of Atty. Mirano, it was discovered that respondent had actually incurred several absences from March to July of 1989 but which absences were not reflected on the DTRs of respondent nor was there any application for leave filed by her therefor.
In his testimony, Atty. Mirano established that on March 27, 28, 29 and 31, 1989, as well as on April 3, 4, 5 and 6, 1989, respondent did not report for work because she acted as guide for her two balikbayan sisters. On April 24, 25, 26 and 27, 1989, respondent joined in the mass leave of court personnel initiated by the Philippine Association of Court Employees. Withal, she did not file any application for leave for these later dates, despite this Court’s directive of April 17, 1989 to the effect that the absences of court personnel during the period from April 24 to April 28, 1989 must be charged against their respective accumulated leave credits.[12] Worse, she also made it appear that she was present on May 16, 1989, June 5, 1989 and July 10, 11, 12 and 28, 1989 although her signatures did not appear in the logbook on these respective dates.[13] Furthermore, the DTRs filed by respondent with this Court for the months of April and August, 1989, although apparently signed by her, indisputably reflected the name of Marilyn O. Oribiana on the top portions thereof.[14]
In her defense, respondent imputes ill motives as the compelling factor behind the filing of this administrative action against her. She asserts that she is being administratively charged by way of reprisal for a previous complaint[15] she had lodged against Atty. Mirano before the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati anent the latter’s conduct in dealing with court personnel. She likewise claims that she accomplished her DTRs without first consulting the court logbook allegedly because Atty. Mirano refused to give it to her and she was already being required by the Office of the Court Administrator to submit the same, under pain of being declared absent without leave (AWOL) and dropped from the roll. In addition, respondent submits that if indeed she had incurred absences, the same could easily be charged against her earned leave credits which were more than enough to cover her absences.
What is worthy, of note, however, is that respondent does not refute, much less deny, the testimony of Atty. Mirano that she was indeed absent on certain specified dates and yet she failed to report the same by not filing the appropriate applications for leave. In a futile attempt to rectify her alleged mistakes, or so respondent claims, she tried to retrieve the DTRs which she submitted with the leave section of the Supreme Court but was deterred from doing so when Atty. Mirano advised then Court Administrator Tiro not to allow her to change her DTRs.[16] Ironically, this vain effort on the part of respondent to change the entries on her DTRs is, for all intents and purposes, an admission on her part that she actually falsified the same. The dishonesty of respondent in misrepresenting to the court that she was present during the dates specified, when in truth and in fact she did not report for work, constitutes serious misconduct which we cannot countenance.
Her contention that Atty. Mirano merely filed this case in retaliation for the complaint she filed before the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati against the former, even if true, is of no controlling significance. Whatever motivated Atty. Mirano to file the present administrative charge is beside the point when we consider the preponderance of evidence proving that respondent is guilty of falsifying her DTRs. Moreover, the Court has observed that it has long been the practice of respondent to falsify entries in her DTRs as this was also the precise reason why Judge Gonong, in whose court she was previously employed, issued an administrative order directing the cancellation of her appointment as court stenographer. This only serves to fortify the postulation that Atty. Mirano was actually impelled by a sense of vindication in administratively charging herein respondent. Finally, and evidently, the fact that respondent has sufficient leave credits to cover her absences cannot in law absolve her from liability for falsification of her DTRs.
Public service requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline. A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity.[17] The administration of justice is a sacred task. By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, all those involved in it must faithfully adhere to, hold inviolate, and invigorate the principle solemnly enshrined in the 1987 Constitution that a public office is a public trust; and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be above suspicion. Indeed, every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.[18]
Under Memorandum Circular No. 30 of the Civil Service Commission, dated July 20, 1989, falsification of an official document is considered a grave offense which warrants the penalty of dismissal. That factual situation and legal sanction are involved in this case before us.
WHEREFORE, respondent Marilyn O. Saavedra is hereby DISMISSED from the government service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Melo, Quiason, Puno, and Vitug, JJ., concur. Bellosillo, J., no part.