EN BANC
[ A.M. No. P-99-1348 (Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 99-696-P), October 15, 2007 ]JUDGE GLORIA B. AGLUGUB v. IMELDA S. PERLEZ +
JUDGE GLORIA B. AGLUGUB, COMPLAINANT, VS. IMELDA S. PERLEZ, CLERK OF COURT I, RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
JUDGE GLORIA B. AGLUGUB v. IMELDA S. PERLEZ +
JUDGE GLORIA B. AGLUGUB, COMPLAINANT, VS. IMELDA S. PERLEZ, CLERK OF COURT I, RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM
In a letter-complaint dated August 12, 1999, Judge Gloria B. Aglugub (complainant) of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 2 of San Pedro Laguna, charged Imelda S. Perlez (respondent), Clerk of Court I of the said branch, of infidelity in the custody of court
records, insubordination, gross inefficiency, grave misconduct, falsification, misrepresentation, dishonesty and neglect of duty.[1]
Complainant claims that respondent, on several occasions, was unable to locate missing court records in her custody; she refused to comply with orders requiring her to submit transcripts of stenographic notes causing delays in the disposition of cases; she refused to transmit records of cases for review and copies of warrants of arrests to the proper agencies; she tells practitioners that she does not know how to prepare court processes; she caused the break-open of the the judge's chambers by means of picklocks to get records and caused their transfer to another branch without authority from the court; she has the propensity of putting the blame on complainant for missing records; she caused the typing of a case number in a commitment order, in addition to one already written, and certified it, making it appear that the same was intended for said case; she stated in her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) in her application with the judiciary that she graduated from college in 1981 but it was found out later that she was a candidate for graduation only in the summer of 1997; and she failed to submit monthly reports for May, June, July 1999 and report on the physical inventory of cases despite receipt of the court's memorandum dated July 13, 1999.[2]
In her Comment dated December 3, 1999, respondent explained that while there were instances when records were misplaced, they were however easily located or reconstituted without causing damage to litigants; the complaint did not specify which orders she refused to obey and which records she refused to transmit; while there was an instance when she asked a lawyer to provide her with a sample form of a writ of demolition, it was done in the presence of and with the acquiescence of complainant; while she did break into the complainant's chamber, she did so only to get records of a detention prisoner who was suffering from illness and who, under the law, was entitled to provisional liberty; she does not put the blame on complainant regarding missing records, she just tells litigants that some records are brought home by the judge for study; it was not respondent, but Marivic Gonzales, Staff Assistant II, who typed a criminal case number on the commitment order of another case; respondent placed in her PDS that she is a college graduate under the honest belief that she finished her Accounting Course; she finished her last semester in college not knowing that her grades in three subjects were incomplete; in any case, she was able to complete the said subjects in the summer of 1997; she always prepared her monthly reports on time until the months of May to July of 1999 when she and her staff could no longer cope with the work due to voluminous records.[3]
The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for its evaluation, report and recommendation.[4]
In the Report dated April 18, 2000, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo recommended that respondent be dismissed from the service for grave misconduct, gross inefficiency and misrepresentation and/or dishonesty.[5]
The Court required both parties to manifest within ten days from notice if they were willing to submit the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings filed.[6] Respondent submitted her Manifestation dated July 13, 2001,[7] expressing her willingness to undergo oral examination or further investigation if this Court would deem it necessary. Complainant filed a Manifestation with Motion dated June 17, 2002, informing the Court that respondent had left the country on February 14, 2002, for an unknown destination, and prayed that the position of Branch Clerk of Court left by respondent be declared vacant and thereafter opened to any qualified applicant.[8]
In a Memorandum dated October 15, 2002, Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez recommended that respondent be considered absent without official leave (AWOL) and that she be dropped from the rolls without prejudice to the outcome of the administrative complaint against her. DCA Perez found that while respondent's initial application for vacation leave for February 1 to April 30, 2002 had been approved, the same had been withdrawn for her violation of Memorandum Order No. 14-2000 which prohibits any employee of the judiciary from leaving the country without obtaining permission from the Supreme Court.[9]
As recommended, the Court issued a Resolution dated December 4, 2002, dropping respondent from the service effective February 14, 2002 for being AWOL, and declaring vacant her position as Clerk of Court in said MTC, without prejudice to the outcome of the administrative case against her.[10]
Subsequently, in a Memorandum dated March 16, 2007, the OCA, through Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock, submitted its evaluation and recommendation in the instant case, as follows:
However, the Court adopts in full the findings and recommendation of the OCA that respondent is administratively liable for dishonesty.
Respondent cannot deny that she misrepresented herself as a college graduate in her PDS. Her only excuse is that when she applied as Court Interpreter and placed in her PDS that she was a college graduate, she did so under the honest belief that she had finished her degree. She claims that she was able to finish the last semester of her course; however she did not know that her grades in Principle's of Science, PE 3 and Accounting 8 were incomplete as she already got pregnant and was preparing for her marriage. It was only when she tried to enroll for college of law that she learned that her grades in the said three subjects were incomplete. She then enrolled the said subjects in Arellano and finished them by the summer of 1997. Thereafter, a certificate and a diploma were issued to her. She also claims that she refrained from stating in documents that she is a college graduate after she learned of her deficiencies in her subjects.[12]
Respondent's claim of good faith does not persuade the Court.
One who invokes good faith must show honesty of intention, free from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put one upon inquiry.[13] As respondent admitted in her letter to the OCA, she had many absences in her three subjects because of her pregnancy and the preparations for her marriage; she was also not able to attend the commencement exercises. These, together with the lack of any diploma or transcript of records stating that she is a graduate, should have put her upon inquiry as to the fact of her having finished her degree. Her claim of good faith is clearly self-serving and does not absolve her from liability.
The importance of accomplishing a PDS with utmost honesty cannot be stressed enough.[14] Its accomplishment is required under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, and since it is a requirement in connection with employment in the government, the making of an untruthful statement therein is intimately connected with such employment.[15]
Respondent falsified an official document to gain unwarranted advantage over other more qualified applicants to the same position. She cannot be said, therefore, to have measured up to the standards required of a public servant.[16] Indeed, respondent's act of stating in her PDS that she was a college graduate when the truth is otherwise amounts to dishonesty by misrepresentation and falsification of an official document that warrants dismissal from the service even for the first offense.[17] As an accessory penalty, her retirement benefits are forfeited due to the falsehood and deceit that marked her assumption of office, traits that are undesirable and unbecoming a public officer or employee.[18]
The Court does not tolerate dishonesty. Persons involved in the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowest clerk, must live up to the strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness and diligence in the public service.[19] As the assumption of public office is impressed with paramount public interest, which requires the highest standards of ethical standards, persons aspiring for public office must observe honesty, candor and faithful compliance with the law.[20]
WHEREFORE, respondent Imelda S. Perlez, Clerk of Court I of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 2 of San Pedro Laguna, is found GUILTY of dishonesty. She is DISMISSED from the service effective immediately, with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency and government-owned or controlled corporation, with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ., on official leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-3.
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at 212-215, 236.
[4] Id. at 275.
[5] Id. at 285.
[6] Id. at 289.
[7] Id. at 300-305.
[8] Id. at 337.
[9] Id. at 341-343.
[10] Id. at 345.
[11] Id. at 351-352.
[12] Id. at 236.
[13] De Guzman v. Delos Santos, 442 Phil. 428, 436 (2002).
[14] Re:Anonymous Complaint Against Mr. Rodel M. Gabriel, A.M. No. 2005-18-SC, April 19, 2006, 487 SCRA 370, 376.
[15] Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document Against Noel V. Luna, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, 463 Phil. 878, 890 (2003); De Guzman v. Delos Santos, supra note 13, at 436; Re:Anonymous Complaint Against Mr. Rodel M. Gabriel, supra note 14, at 376.
[16] De Guzman v. Delos Santos, supra note 13, at 434, 440; Re:Anonymous Complaint Against Mr. Rodel M. Gabriel, supra note 14, at 378.
[17] Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document Against Noel V. Luna, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, supra note 15, at 890; De Guzman v. Delos Santos, supra note 13, at 436.
[18] De Guzman v. Delos Santos, supra note 13, at 441.
[19] De Guzman v. Delos Santos, supra note 13, at 439; Re:Anonymous Complaint Against Mr. Rodel M. Gabriel, supra note 14, at 377-378.
[20] De Guzman v. Delos Santos, supra note 13, at 441.
Complainant claims that respondent, on several occasions, was unable to locate missing court records in her custody; she refused to comply with orders requiring her to submit transcripts of stenographic notes causing delays in the disposition of cases; she refused to transmit records of cases for review and copies of warrants of arrests to the proper agencies; she tells practitioners that she does not know how to prepare court processes; she caused the break-open of the the judge's chambers by means of picklocks to get records and caused their transfer to another branch without authority from the court; she has the propensity of putting the blame on complainant for missing records; she caused the typing of a case number in a commitment order, in addition to one already written, and certified it, making it appear that the same was intended for said case; she stated in her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) in her application with the judiciary that she graduated from college in 1981 but it was found out later that she was a candidate for graduation only in the summer of 1997; and she failed to submit monthly reports for May, June, July 1999 and report on the physical inventory of cases despite receipt of the court's memorandum dated July 13, 1999.[2]
In her Comment dated December 3, 1999, respondent explained that while there were instances when records were misplaced, they were however easily located or reconstituted without causing damage to litigants; the complaint did not specify which orders she refused to obey and which records she refused to transmit; while there was an instance when she asked a lawyer to provide her with a sample form of a writ of demolition, it was done in the presence of and with the acquiescence of complainant; while she did break into the complainant's chamber, she did so only to get records of a detention prisoner who was suffering from illness and who, under the law, was entitled to provisional liberty; she does not put the blame on complainant regarding missing records, she just tells litigants that some records are brought home by the judge for study; it was not respondent, but Marivic Gonzales, Staff Assistant II, who typed a criminal case number on the commitment order of another case; respondent placed in her PDS that she is a college graduate under the honest belief that she finished her Accounting Course; she finished her last semester in college not knowing that her grades in three subjects were incomplete; in any case, she was able to complete the said subjects in the summer of 1997; she always prepared her monthly reports on time until the months of May to July of 1999 when she and her staff could no longer cope with the work due to voluminous records.[3]
The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for its evaluation, report and recommendation.[4]
In the Report dated April 18, 2000, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo recommended that respondent be dismissed from the service for grave misconduct, gross inefficiency and misrepresentation and/or dishonesty.[5]
The Court required both parties to manifest within ten days from notice if they were willing to submit the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings filed.[6] Respondent submitted her Manifestation dated July 13, 2001,[7] expressing her willingness to undergo oral examination or further investigation if this Court would deem it necessary. Complainant filed a Manifestation with Motion dated June 17, 2002, informing the Court that respondent had left the country on February 14, 2002, for an unknown destination, and prayed that the position of Branch Clerk of Court left by respondent be declared vacant and thereafter opened to any qualified applicant.[8]
In a Memorandum dated October 15, 2002, Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez recommended that respondent be considered absent without official leave (AWOL) and that she be dropped from the rolls without prejudice to the outcome of the administrative complaint against her. DCA Perez found that while respondent's initial application for vacation leave for February 1 to April 30, 2002 had been approved, the same had been withdrawn for her violation of Memorandum Order No. 14-2000 which prohibits any employee of the judiciary from leaving the country without obtaining permission from the Supreme Court.[9]
As recommended, the Court issued a Resolution dated December 4, 2002, dropping respondent from the service effective February 14, 2002 for being AWOL, and declaring vacant her position as Clerk of Court in said MTC, without prejudice to the outcome of the administrative case against her.[10]
Subsequently, in a Memorandum dated March 16, 2007, the OCA, through Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock, submitted its evaluation and recommendation in the instant case, as follows:
A careful review of the records indicates that respondent is administratively liable.The recommendation of the OCA that the Resolution of the Court dated December 4, 2002 dropping respondent from the rolls be set aside is not well-taken. The Resolution itself expressly declared that the dropping of the name of respondent from service is without prejudice to the outcome of the present administrative case.
While not all the accusations against respondent were substantiated, one charge, however, remained incontrovertible. Respondent having made it appear in her personal data sheet that she is a college graduate although she is not. We do not subscribe to respondent's excuse that she did it under the honest belief that she had finished the Accounting Course at Arellano University so as to exonerate herself from liability. The records reveal that she failed to graduate because she got an incomplete grade in three (3) subjects, namely (1) Principle of Science; (2) PE 3 and (3) Accounting 8. It is a fact that an incomplete grade is given to a student who incurs deficiencies in a given subject, i.e., the student failed to take the final exam or failed to submit a required project. Since she got an incomplete grade in three (3) subjects, it is safe to assume that she must have incurred some deficiencies in those subjects. Any student in his or her right mind will not expect to pass a subject in which he or she has incurred a deficiency. Also, the records disclose that respondent completed the course in 1997, not for the purpose of meeting the qualification standard of the position she is holding, but rather to be able to study law. Respondent's flimsy excuse of good faith cannot be sustained in the light of the overwhelming facts to the contrary.
In the case of Court Administrator vs. Judge Ricardo M. Magtibay, A.M. No. R-254-MTJ and 88-1-2807-MCTC, May 9, 1988, for Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge and Misrepresentation in Filling Up his Personal Data Sheet for Judges, the Court found respondent guilty beyond reasonable doubt and ordered the latter's dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all salaries, benefits and leave credits to which he may be entitled.
Likewise, in A.M. No. 2003-9-SC, Re: Adm. Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of public document, Benjamin Katly, respondent, the Court dismissed respondent for having twice represented in his personal data sheet that he was a college graduate when in reality he was not. It was ruled therein that his making a false statement in his Personal Data Sheet constitutes an act of dishonesty.
Under the schedule of penalties adopted by the Civil Service, gross dishonesty is classified as a grave offense and the penalty imposable is dismissal even on its first offense.
In view of the foregoing, undersigned respectfully recommends that the resolution dated December 4, 2002 dropping respondent, Imelda Perlez, Clerk of Court, MTC, Branch 2, San Pedro, Laguna from the service for being absent without official leave be SET ASIDE and that she be DISMISSED from the service for gross dishonesty with consequent forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government including government-owned or controlled corporation.[11]
However, the Court adopts in full the findings and recommendation of the OCA that respondent is administratively liable for dishonesty.
Respondent cannot deny that she misrepresented herself as a college graduate in her PDS. Her only excuse is that when she applied as Court Interpreter and placed in her PDS that she was a college graduate, she did so under the honest belief that she had finished her degree. She claims that she was able to finish the last semester of her course; however she did not know that her grades in Principle's of Science, PE 3 and Accounting 8 were incomplete as she already got pregnant and was preparing for her marriage. It was only when she tried to enroll for college of law that she learned that her grades in the said three subjects were incomplete. She then enrolled the said subjects in Arellano and finished them by the summer of 1997. Thereafter, a certificate and a diploma were issued to her. She also claims that she refrained from stating in documents that she is a college graduate after she learned of her deficiencies in her subjects.[12]
Respondent's claim of good faith does not persuade the Court.
One who invokes good faith must show honesty of intention, free from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put one upon inquiry.[13] As respondent admitted in her letter to the OCA, she had many absences in her three subjects because of her pregnancy and the preparations for her marriage; she was also not able to attend the commencement exercises. These, together with the lack of any diploma or transcript of records stating that she is a graduate, should have put her upon inquiry as to the fact of her having finished her degree. Her claim of good faith is clearly self-serving and does not absolve her from liability.
The importance of accomplishing a PDS with utmost honesty cannot be stressed enough.[14] Its accomplishment is required under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, and since it is a requirement in connection with employment in the government, the making of an untruthful statement therein is intimately connected with such employment.[15]
Respondent falsified an official document to gain unwarranted advantage over other more qualified applicants to the same position. She cannot be said, therefore, to have measured up to the standards required of a public servant.[16] Indeed, respondent's act of stating in her PDS that she was a college graduate when the truth is otherwise amounts to dishonesty by misrepresentation and falsification of an official document that warrants dismissal from the service even for the first offense.[17] As an accessory penalty, her retirement benefits are forfeited due to the falsehood and deceit that marked her assumption of office, traits that are undesirable and unbecoming a public officer or employee.[18]
The Court does not tolerate dishonesty. Persons involved in the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowest clerk, must live up to the strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness and diligence in the public service.[19] As the assumption of public office is impressed with paramount public interest, which requires the highest standards of ethical standards, persons aspiring for public office must observe honesty, candor and faithful compliance with the law.[20]
WHEREFORE, respondent Imelda S. Perlez, Clerk of Court I of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 2 of San Pedro Laguna, is found GUILTY of dishonesty. She is DISMISSED from the service effective immediately, with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency and government-owned or controlled corporation, with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ., on official leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-3.
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at 212-215, 236.
[4] Id. at 275.
[5] Id. at 285.
[6] Id. at 289.
[7] Id. at 300-305.
[8] Id. at 337.
[9] Id. at 341-343.
[10] Id. at 345.
[11] Id. at 351-352.
[12] Id. at 236.
[13] De Guzman v. Delos Santos, 442 Phil. 428, 436 (2002).
[14] Re:Anonymous Complaint Against Mr. Rodel M. Gabriel, A.M. No. 2005-18-SC, April 19, 2006, 487 SCRA 370, 376.
[15] Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document Against Noel V. Luna, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, 463 Phil. 878, 890 (2003); De Guzman v. Delos Santos, supra note 13, at 436; Re:Anonymous Complaint Against Mr. Rodel M. Gabriel, supra note 14, at 376.
[16] De Guzman v. Delos Santos, supra note 13, at 434, 440; Re:Anonymous Complaint Against Mr. Rodel M. Gabriel, supra note 14, at 378.
[17] Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document Against Noel V. Luna, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, supra note 15, at 890; De Guzman v. Delos Santos, supra note 13, at 436.
[18] De Guzman v. Delos Santos, supra note 13, at 441.
[19] De Guzman v. Delos Santos, supra note 13, at 439; Re:Anonymous Complaint Against Mr. Rodel M. Gabriel, supra note 14, at 377-378.
[20] De Guzman v. Delos Santos, supra note 13, at 441.