A.M. No. P-12-3036, June 20, 2012
Clerk of Court Arlyn A. Hermano vs. Edwin D. Cardeño, Utility Worker I, MTC, Cabuyao, Laguna

FACTS

Complainant Arlyn A. Hermano, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cabuyao, Laguna, filed an administrative complaint charging respondent Edwin D. Cardeño, a Utility Worker, with three counts of grave misconduct. The charges stemmed from a series of incidents where court records, including Daily Time Records (DTRs) of personnel and case records, repeatedly went missing. Complainant alleged that on multiple occasions in December 2009 and March 2010, respondent was found to have taken these official documents without authorization. Respondent later returned most, but not all, of the records. He also refused to receive explanatory memoranda, failed to properly file leave applications for his absences, and altered entries in the office logbook and his DTR. After receiving an “Unsatisfactory” performance rating, respondent allegedly became uncooperative. He resigned in August 2010 but later filed a comment claiming his leave applications were misplaced or unsigned by complainant.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Edwin D. Cardeño is administratively liable for grave misconduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is liable for grave misconduct. The Supreme Court found that respondent’s actions constituted a willful transgression of established rules, characterized by a flagrant disregard for the safekeeping of court records, which is a paramount duty of court personnel. His unauthorized taking and possession of case records and DTRs on multiple occasions, his refusal to comply with office directives, and his attempts to conceal his absences by altering official documents demonstrated a pattern of conduct prejudicial to the court’s integrity and efficiency. The Court emphasized that the conduct of every court employee is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, as the court is a haven for truth and justice. Respondent’s resignation did not extinguish his administrative liability. Considering his resignation, the Court modified the penalty from dismissal to a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any government agency. He was also ordered to return any remaining case records, and the Office of the Court Administrator was directed to file appropriate criminal charges and conduct a judicial audit. The Clerk of Court was likewise ordered to show cause for her failure to exercise due diligence as custodian.