FACTS:

This case involves three consolidated administrative cases filed against Atty. Susan Mendoza-Arce, the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City. On September 14, 1994, Executive Judge Sergio L. Pestaño received a report from Atty. Arce, alleging that stenographers Anna B. Duran and Johnel C. Arches falsified their Daily Time Records (DTRs) to attend their 4:30 p.m. class, and that Atty. Esperanza Isabel E. Poco-Deslate, the Branch Clerk of Court, tolerated their misconduct. On September 15, Judge Pestaño received a petition from 24 employees of the RTC, praying for the investigation and preventive suspension of Atty. Arce. The employees accused Atty. Arce of oppressive behavior, lack of emotional stability, usurpation of authority, fostering red tape, insulting staff employees, and causing a general atmosphere of uneasiness and low morale among the employees. After all parties submitted their comments, Judge Pestaño attempted mediation to resolve the controversy but it proved futile. On September 16, Dinah Christina A. Amane, a Clerk III of RTC-Branch 19, filed a complaint against Atty. Arce directly with the Office of the Court Administrator, accusing her of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, disgraceful conduct, and oppression. The complaint alleged specific instances of Atty. Arce's alleged oppressive and disgraceful behavior.

Atty. Esperanza Poco-Deslate filed a countercharge against Atty. Susan Mendoza-Arce, accusing her of grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, intentionally making false statements, and oppression. Atty. Poco-Deslate alleged that Atty. Arce maliciously accused court personnel, caused disturbance, and usurped functions belonging to other authorities. Atty. Poco-Deslate also claimed that Atty. Arce's accusation of falsification of DTRs by Anita Duran and Johnel Arches lacked factual basis. She further alleged that Atty. Arce's actuations caused serious anxieties among court employees and that Atty. Arce even aired the matter of her investigations over the radio. In response, Atty. Arce filed complaints against Duran, Arches, and Atty. Poco-Deslate for falsification of DTRs and connivance in said falsification. The cases were consolidated and referred to Investigating Judge Julius L. Abela. The investigating judge submitted his confidential investigation report recommending the dismissal of charges against Atty. Arce filed by Dinah Christina Amane for failure to prove specific acts of oppression. The investigating judge also recommended the dismissal of Amane for falsification and notorious absenteeism, finding that her absence from the office was established by several circumstances.

In this case, several disciplinary cases were filed against Atty. Susan Mendoza-Arce, who was accused of grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, oppression, and other related offenses. The investigation centered on the alleged falsification of daily time records (DTRs) by an employee named Dinah Amane, who was under the supervision of Atty. Mendoza-Arce. It was alleged that Amane frequently engaged in unauthorized absences or was present at the Roxas City Hall of Justice but not actually performing her official duties. Atty. Mendoza-Arce was accused of tolerating these absences and failing to properly supervise and discipline her subordinates. Moreover, Atty. Mendoza-Arce was said to have exhibited oppressive behavior towards her co-workers, including Atty. Poco-Deslate, who was consistently criticized and found fault with. Numerous employees of the court supported these claims and signed a petition detailing the alleged misconduct of Atty. Mendoza-Arce.

A petition was filed under oath by court employees against Atty. Mendoza-Arce, the Clerk of Court, seeking her investigation and suspension for alleged oppression and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service. The petition claimed that she lacks emotional stability, alienates herself from the workforce, wastes time looking for minor errors of employees, and creates a pervasive unease in the Hall of Justice. It was also alleged that Atty. Mendoza-Arce threatened to file administrative charges against employees who signed the petition and treated them like houseboys and housemaids, bullying and shouting at them. In an attempt to resolve the conflict, the Executive Judge issued an office order reiterating the duties, functions, and authority of the Clerk of Court and informing that the Presiding Judge has discretion over whether the Branch Clerk of Court will directly mail the Daily Time Records (DTRs) of branch employees.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Atty. Mendoza-Arce's actions and behavior constitute oppression and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

2. Whether Atty. Mendoza-Arce's acts of threatening and intimidating court personnel are in violation of the Civil Service Law.

3. Whether there is basis to overturn the factual findings arrived at and sanctions recommended in the investigation report.

4. Whether Atty. Esperanza E. Poco-Deslante should be penalized for tolerating the frequent unauthorized absences of Dinah Christina Amane.

5. Whether Atty. Esperanza E. Poco-Deslante is liable for neglect of duty.

6. Whether the suspension of the Third Assistant Provincial Prosecutor is appropriate.

7. Whether Anita Duran and Johnel Arches should be held liable for falsification.

8. Whether Atty. Susan Mendoza-Arce should be held accountable for misconduct.

9. Whether Atty. Mendoza-Arce's action of going on air to throw counter-accusations against court employees is justified.

10. Whether Atty. Mendoza-Arce disregarded the authority of her superior, Executive Judge Sergio Pestaño.

11. Whether Atty. Mendoza-Arce proceeded administratively against Anita Duran and Johnel Arches without sufficient evidence.

12. Whether Dinah Christina A. Amane should be dismissed from the service for notorious absenteeism and falsification of her Daily Time Records (DTRs).

13. Whether Atty. Esperanza E. Poco-Deslate should be held liable for simple neglect of duty in relation to Dinah Christina A. Amane's offenses.

14. Whether Anita B. Duran and Johnel C. Arches should be held liable for falsification of DTRs.

15. Whether Atty. Esperanza E. Poco-Deslate should be held liable for connivance to falsification of DTRs.

16. Whether Atty. Susan Mendoza-Arce should be dismissed from the service for grave misconduct, oppression, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

RULING:

1. Yes, Atty. Mendoza-Arce's actions and behavior constitute oppression and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

2. Yes, Atty. Mendoza-Arce's acts of threatening and intimidating court personnel are in violation of the Civil Service Law.

3. The Court finds no basis to overturn the factual findings arrived at and sanctions recommended in the investigation report, except for the penalty imposed on Atty. Esperanza E. Poco-Deslante which is reduced from six (6) months suspension to one (1) month and ten (10) days suspension without pay.

4. Atty. Esperanza E. Poco-Deslante should be held answerable for tolerating Dinah Christina Amane's frequent unauthorized absences as her immediate supervisor. However, no specific penalty was mentioned in the text.

5. Atty. Esperanza E. Poco-Deslante is liable for neglect of duty, as found by the investigation report. No specific penalty was mentioned in the text.

6. The suspension of the Third Assistant Provincial Prosecutor is deemed inappropriate since she has already assumed office. Instead, a fine of P10,000.00 is imposed.

7. Anita Duran and Johnel Arches cannot be held liable for falsification due to insufficient evidence. The charges against them are dismissed.

8. Atty. Susan Mendoza-Arce should be held accountable for grave misconduct for her acts of harassment, intimidation, and oppression in connection with the administrative cases.

9. Atty. Mendoza-Arce's action of going on air to throw counter-accusations against court employees is not justified and should not be countenanced. It unduly exposed the court and its personnel to public ridicule and derision, which goes against the requirement for all those involved in the administration of justice to conduct themselves with propriety and decorum and to avoid incidents that degrade the judiciary.

10. Atty. Mendoza-Arce disregarded the authority of her superior, Executive Judge Sergio Pestaño, by initiating an administrative proceeding against court employees without proper evidence. The Manual for Clerks of Court limits the general supervisory power of the Clerk of Court, thus emphasizing the primacy of the supervisory powers of the Executive Judge.

11. Atty. Mendoza-Arce proceeded administratively against Anita Duran and Johnel Arches despite lack of evidence, disregarding the persistent efforts at mediation by the judges of the RTC-Roxas City, including the Executive Judge. Although the Court does not approve of the Executive Judge's action of allowing the stenographers to undertime their DTRs, it recognizes the judge's initiative in encouraging the professional growth of his staff.

12. Dinah Christina A. Amane is found guilty of notorious absenteeism and falsification of her DTRs. She is ordered to be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, and with prejudice to reemployment in the government.

13. Atty. Esperanza E. Poco-Deslate is found guilty of simple neglect of duty for tolerating Dinah Christina A. Amane's offenses. She is ordered to pay a fine of P10,000.00.

14. The charges of falsification of DTRs against Anita B. Duran and Johnel C. Arches are dismissed for lack of merit.

15. Since the charges against Anita B. Duran and Johnel C. Arches were dismissed, the charge of connivance to the falsification of DTRs against Atty. Esperanza E. Poco-Deslate is also dismissed.

16. Atty. Susan Mendoza-Arce is found guilty of grave misconduct, oppression, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. She is ordered to be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, and with prejudice to reemployment in the government.

PRINCIPLES:

• Oppression and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service are grounds for administrative charges against a public servant.

• Court personnel are entitled to a work environment free from threats, intimidation, and unjust treatment.

• Violations of the Civil Service Law can lead to administrative sanctions against public servants.

• Falsification or irregularities in the keeping of time records render the guilty officer or employee administratively liable, without prejudice to criminal prosecution as the circumstances warrant.

• Falsification of official documents is punishable with dismissal from the service even for the first offense.

• An immediate supervisor should discipline and ensure that subordinates regularly and promptly perform their duties. Neglect of this duty may result in liability for the supervisor.

• Suspension from office may be deemed inappropriate if the accused has already assumed office.

• Enrollment certificates only prove the fact of enrollment and not actual attendance in class.

• The Grading Sheets and testimonies from professors and co-employees can be considered in evaluating attendance in class.

• Public officers are expected to accord respect for the rights and persons of others and should conduct themselves with courtesy, prudence, and dignity.

• Opinions obtained through oppressive means and by suborning perjury are not legitimate means of obtaining evidence.

• Lawyers are mandated to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes.

• Conducting oneself with the highest degree of propriety and decorum is required of all those involved in the administration of justice.

• The supervisory powers of the Executive Judge take precedence over the general supervisory power of the Clerk of Court.

• Judges have the power and discretion to discipline employees under them, unless they are under investigation or unjustifiably refuse to exercise their supervisory powers.

• Public interest must be upheld over personal interests.

• Government officials and employees are expected to possess the highest degree of excellence, integrity, efficiency, and professionalism.

• Notorious absenteeism and falsification of government records are serious offenses that warrant dismissal from the service.

• Immediate supervisors may be held liable for neglect of duty if they tolerate or do not take appropriate action against subordinates who commit offenses.

• Charges must be supported by sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.

• Grave misconduct, oppression, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service are just causes for dismissal from the service.