A.M. No. P-06-2280; January 31, 2008
Ellen Belarmino Lopena, complainant, vs. Mary Jane L. Saloma, Clerk of Court IV, Metropolitan Trial Court, Marikina City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ellen Belarmino Lopena filed an administrative complaint against respondent Mary Jane L. Saloma, Clerk of Court IV of the MeTC of Marikina City, for dishonesty, misrepresentation, and unethical behavior, including allegations that respondent utilized official time to attend hearings for her personal cases. Respondent denied the accusations, attributing the complaint to a property dispute between the parties. She claimed she sought permission for absences and offset her time by working on Saturdays and after office hours.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a formal investigation focused on two issues: the veracity of the claim that respondent used office hours for personal hearings, and whether she had proper authorization under Administrative Circular No. 2-99 to work on Saturdays. The Executive Judge of the RTC of Marikina City conducted the investigation. The report established that on several specified dates in 2006, respondent attended barangay and prosecutor’s office hearings during office hours. Respondent failed to present time cards or approved leave applications to substantiate her claims of returning to work or having authorized offsets for these absences.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is administratively liable for utilizing official time to attend hearings for her personal cases.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court adopted the findings of the investigating judge and the OCA. Respondent’s unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours to attend to personal legal matters constitute the grave offense of “loafing or frequent unauthorized absences from duty” under Rule IV of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19-99. The term “frequent” in this context means the act was committed more than once, which was proven by the multiple instances documented.
The Court rejected respondent’s defenses. Her claim of offsetting absences by working beyond regular hours or on Saturdays is expressly prohibited under Section 9, Rule XVII of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. Furthermore, her assertion of having permission for some absences was unsupported by evidence, as she failed to present certifications from the Executive Judge. Such infractions constitute inefficiency and dereliction of duty, which adversely affect the prompt delivery of justice and erode public trust in the judiciary.
Considering respondent’s long record of satisfactory service and that this was her first offense, the Court mitigated the applicable penalty. Instead of the prescribed suspension of six months and one day to one year for a first offense of grave misconduct, the Court imposed a three-month suspension from service without pay.