A.M. No. P-93-822 December 1, 1994
Atty. Edwin Betguen, et al. vs. Dominga P. Masangcay

FACTS

Respondent Dominga P. Masangcay, a Clerk IV at the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC Cabarroguis, Quirino, was convicted for intriguing against honor. The records of her appellate case, C.A.- G.R. No. 10643 , were remanded by the Court of Appeals to the RTC on November 18, 1991. Evidence, including a signature on the post office registry book, established that respondent personally received the parcel containing these records on November 27, 1991. However, the records never appeared in the court’s logbook or files. Their loss was discovered only when the private complainants inquired about the case status.
Subsequently, respondent was required to explain the concealment of records. She denied responsibility, claiming she endorsed the parcel to complainant Clerk of Court Atty. Edwin Betguen, who denied this. Weeks before the promulgation of the judgment affirming her conviction in April 1993, respondent had been continuously absent without official leave (AWOL). Despite memoranda directing her to explain her absences, she failed to reply or report for work. Her belated submission of a medical certificate was deemed insufficient to excuse a two-and-a-half-month absence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Dominga P. Masangcay is administratively liable for the charges against her, warranting dismissal from service.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of serious administrative offenses meriting dismissal. The Court found her responsible for the concealment and loss of the court records. The evidence conclusively showed she was the last person in possession of the parcel containing the records. Her defense of endorsement to Atty. Betguen was unsubstantiated and contradicted. This act constitutes dishonesty and grave misconduct, as it was a deliberate attempt to frustrate the administration of justice concerning her own criminal case.
Furthermore, her prolonged unauthorized absence without approved leave constitutes gross neglect of duty and insubordination. The belated medical certificate excused only a single day, not the extended period. Her pattern of misconduct, including a prior administrative infraction, demonstrates moral unfitness for public service. Applying the Omnibus Rules, where multiple charges exist, the penalty for the most serious offense is imposed, with others as aggravating. The gravity of concealing court records to obstruct justice, compounded by habitual absenteeism, warrants the supreme penalty of dismissal. Accordingly, respondent was dismissed from service with forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government agency.