AM 00 1394; (January, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 00-1394. January 15, 2002
RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS OCA IPI NO. 97-228-P (JUDGE RAFAEL P. SANTELICES vs. LOIDA B. SAMAR, UTILITY AIDE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-LIBRARY, LEGAZPI CITY); and OCA IPI NO. 97-383-P (JUDGE RAFAEL P. SANTELICES vs. LOIDA B. SAMAR, OF THE SAME STATION).
FACTS
Judge Rafael P. Santelices filed administrative complaints against Loida B. Samar, a Utility Aide. In OCA IPI No. 97-228-P, the judge charged Samar with insubordination for refusing to sign an attendance logbook, loafing during office hours, and dishonesty for making erasures on her bundy card to reflect absences from March 24 to April 1, 1997, after failing to secure prior leave approval. He also alleged she slept in the court library with a lady companion. In the consolidated OCA IPI No. 97-383-P, the judge charged Samar with conduct unbecoming a public officer for allegedly slapping and berating her mother within the Hall of Justice premises on November 18, 1997, and with deceit for attaching a draft, unsigned affidavit to a letter sent to her mother, making it appear that a process server had executed it in her favor.
In her defense, Samar denied knowledge of the logbook policy, claimed her outside errands were authorized, and explained her bundy card erasures were merely to correct the record. She denied the immoral allegations regarding her companion. For the November incident, she asserted she merely talked to her mother and submitted an affidavit from her mother recanting the slapping allegation. She claimed the draft affidavit was merely to remind her mother of a witness.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Loida B. Samar is administratively liable for the charges against her.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of misconduct. The Court agreed with the findings of the Investigating Judge and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), which gave credence to the testimonies of witnesses over Samar’s denials and her mother’s recanting affidavit. The Court held that the evidence substantiated the charges of insubordination, dishonesty in tampering with her bundy card, and conduct unbecoming a public officer for creating a commotion and disrespecting her mother within court premises. The act of attaching a draft affidavit without the purported affiant’s knowledge or consent, even if unsigned, demonstrated deceitful conduct.
The Court emphasized that all court personnel must adhere to the highest standards of integrity and propriety, as their conduct reflects directly on the judiciary’s integrity. While the OCA recommended a six-month suspension, the Court deemed a three-month suspension without pay as sufficient and more reasonable under the circumstances. The penalty serves as a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.