G.R. No. A.M. No. P-97-1234 August 18, 1997
Cristeta Orfila vs. Rona S. Quiroz, Stenographer III, RTC-Br. 18, Manila

FACTS

Cristeta Orfila, a Utility Worker at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Manila, filed an administrative complaint against Rona Quiroz, a Stenographer III in the same branch, for habitual tardiness and loafing during office hours. The complaint specifically alleged that Quiroz frequently left the office without permission from her superiors. Judge Perfecto A.S. Laguio, Jr., the presiding judge, was directed to investigate. In her defense, Quiroz denied the charges, asserting her daily time records showed regular attendance and diligent performance of duties, and claimed the complaint was retaliatory for an earlier administrative case she had filed against Orfila.
Judge Laguio conducted a hearing where both parties presented evidence. In his report, he found Orfila’s allegations credible, noting that on multiple occasions he had personally called for Quiroz to take dictation only to be informed she had “just gone out for a while” or was in the ladies’ room, with colleagues covering for her. He characterized the offenses as light and recommended a fine equivalent to five days’ salary. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), however, evaluated the case and recommended a one-month suspension with a stern warning.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Rona S. Quiroz is administratively liable for loafing on the job during office hours.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Quiroz guilty of loafing on the job. The Court accorded weight to the factual findings of the investigating judge, who personally attested to instances where Quiroz was unavailable during office hours despite being on official duty. The Court rejected Quiroz’s defense that her daily time record proved her presence, reasoning that such a record merely indicates arrival and departure times and does not account for absences in between. This conduct hampers efficiency and violates the norm of public accountability required of all judiciary personnel.
Regarding the penalty, the Court deemed the offense a light civil service infraction but modified the recommendations. Instead of the five-day salary fine suggested by Judge Laguio or the one-month suspension proposed by the OCA, the Court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a warning against repetition. The Court also strongly admonished both parties for their mutual animosity and filing of retaliatory complaints, which wasted official time and was prejudicial to the service, urging them to settle their differences amicably and uphold the decorum expected of court employees.