Compassionate justice shown in administrative case involving dishonesty of court employee - A.M. No. P-10-2784

A.M. No. P-10-2784

"x xx .

As found by the OCA, Benedictos is guilty of dishonesty for falsifying her DTRs/bundy cards.

In his letter dated January 13, 2005, Atty. Ortega categorically stated that his purported signatures appearing on Benedictos’s bundy cards for August and October 2004 were not his. Conspicuously, despite the seriousness of the charge against her, Benedictos failed to comply with the repeated directives of the OCA and this Court for her to file a comment.

Benedictos’s silence on a principal charge against her is admission, especially considering that she was given ample opportunity to deny the same.[11] Benedictos’s refusal to face the charges against her head-on is contrary to the principle in criminal law that the first impulse of an innocent person, when accused of wrongdoing, is to express his or her innocence at the first opportune time.[12]

Moreover, as a result of its own analytical study of the evidence on record, the Court is convinced that Atty. Ortega’s signatures appearing on Benedictos’s bundy cards for August and October 2004 were indeed forged. The marked differences between Atty. Ortega’s purported signatures on Benedictos’s bundy cards for August and October 2004, on one hand, and Atty. Ortega’s admitted genuine signatures on Benedictos’s bundy cards for September and November 2004, on the other, are easily discernible even to the naked eye.

In determining the appropriate penalty, the Court deems Benedictos’s falsification of her bundy cards tantamount to dishonesty. This Court has defined dishonesty as the “(d)isposition 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.”[13] Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in government service.[14]

However, in several administrative cases, the Court refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors. There were several cases,[15] particularly involving dishonesty, in which the Court meted a penalty lower than dismissal because of the existence of mitigating circumstances.

In Re: Ting and Esmerio,[16] the Court did not impose the severe penalty of dismissal because the respondents acknowledged their infractions, demonstrated remorse, and had dedicated long years of service to the judiciary. Instead, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension for six months on Ting, and the forfeiture of Esmerio’s salary equivalent to six months on account of the latter’s retirement.

The Court similarly imposed in Re: Failure of Jose Dante E. Guerrero to Register his Time In and Out in the Chronolog Time Recorder Machine on Several Dates[17] the penalty of six months suspension on an employee found guilty of dishonesty for falsifying his time record. The Court took into account as mitigating circumstances Guererro’s good performance rating, 13 years of satisfactory service in the judiciary, and his acknowledgment of and remorse for his infractions.

The compassion extended by the Court in the aforementioned cases was not without legal basis. Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[18] grants the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the proper penalty.

In the case at bar, this is Benedictos’s first administrative case in her 19 years in government service, for which six months suspension is already sufficient penalty.

Additionally, the Court bears in mind Benedictos’s failure to submit her comment, which constitutes clear and willful disrespect, not just for the OCA, but also for the Court, which exercises direct administrative supervision over trial court officers and employees through the former. In fact, it can be said that Benedictos’s non-compliance with the OCA directives is tantamount to insubordination to the Court itself.[19] Benedictos also directly demonstrated her disrespect to the Court by ignoring its Resolutions dated June 25, 2007 (ordering her to show cause for her failure to comply with the OCA directives and to file her comment) and March 26, 2008 (ordering her to pay a fine ofP1,000.00 for her continuous failure to file a comment).

A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court’s lawful order and directive.[20] This contumacious conduct of refusing to abide by the lawful directives issued by the Court has likewise been considered as an utter lack of interest to remain with, if not contempt of, the system.[21] Benedictos’s insolence is further aggravated by the fact that she is an employee of the Judiciary, who, more than an ordinary citizen, should be aware of her duty to obey the orders and processes of the Supreme Court without delay.[22]

For her non-compliance with the show cause order and nonpayment of the fine imposed upon her in the Supreme Court Resolutions dated June 25, 2007 and March 26, 2008, respectively, Benedictos is ordered to pay an additional fine of P2,000.00, in addition to the original fine of P1,000.00.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Ma. Emcisa Benedictos GUILTY of dishonesty and imposes upon her the penalty of SUSPENSION for six (6) months, effective immediately. The Court further orders Benedictos to pay aFINE in the total amount of P3,000.00 for her failure to comply with the Resolutions dated June 25, 2007 and March 26, 2008. Finally, the Court issues a stern warning to Benedictos that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

x x x."