A.M. No. P-06-2114, December 5, 2006
Anonymous vs. Lourdes C. Grande, Clerk of Court, MCTC, Roxas, Palawan

FACTS

An anonymous complaint prompted an investigation into Lourdes C. Grande, Clerk of Court of the MCTC, Roxas, Palawan, for abuse of authority, habitual absenteeism and tardiness, and conduct prejudicial to the service. Executive Judge Nelia Y. Fernandez’s discreet investigation gathered testimonies from court personnel. Former court interpreter Miguel Presto stated respondent was frequently absent and tardy, with her Daily Time Records (DTRs) not reflecting this as she failed to file proper leave applications. He also reported she pre-signed clearance forms, attended to her husband’s private businesses during office hours, and misused representation and travel allowances. Stenographer Norma Rustia submitted a detailed list of absences and tardiness from 1992 to 2002. Former clerk-stenographer Arcelita Rodriguez affirmed in an affidavit that she and a co-employee were required to assist respondent in her personal catering business during official working hours.
In her Comment, respondent denied most allegations, attributing them to harassment. She admitted to occasional tardiness and to pre-signing clearance forms on two occasions for convenience, claiming it increased collections. She also admitted receiving allowances but asserted they were supported by a local resolution. The case was referred for further investigation to Vice Executive Judge Perfecto E. Pe, who found convincing evidence of falsified DTRs with erasures and unusual “DAY OFF” markings, and confirmed the misuse of subordinate personnel for private business.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is administratively liable for the charges against her.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of dishonesty, aggravated by loafing and misconduct, warranting dismissal. The Court affirmed the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and the investigating judges. Respondent’s defense of mere denial and claims of witness bias were insufficient to overcome the substantial evidence presented, including sworn affidavits and the physical evidence of tampered DTRs. Her own admissions to tardiness and pre-signing official documents, coupled with the unrebutted testimonies that these infractions were not recorded, constitute dishonesty. Dishonesty, a grave offense under Civil Service Rules, is demonstrated by the deliberate falsification of time records to conceal absenteeism and tardiness.
Furthermore, requiring court subordinates to work on her private catering business during office hours constitutes misconduct and a gross abuse of authority, prejudicing the service’s efficiency and integrity. Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, when an employee is found guilty of multiple charges, the penalty for the most serious offense applies, with others treated as aggravating. Dishonesty is punishable by dismissal on the first offense. The aggravating circumstances of loafing and misconduct justify the supreme penalty. Accordingly, the Court dismissed respondent from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any government instrumentality.