G.R. No. A.M. No. P-94-1072 August 5, 1998
Marites R. Moreno, complainant, vs. Vilma A. Bragat, Clerk II, 2nd MCTC, Daanbantayan-Medellin, Cebu, respondent.

FACTS

Marites R. Moreno filed a sworn complaint against Vilma A. Bragat, a Clerk II, for grave misconduct, slander by deed, oral defamation, and falsification of a public document. The complainant alleged that on January 6, 1993, at around 3:00 PM, while she was working at the Singer/World Appliance Center in Bogo, Cebu, respondent arrived, called for her, and then suddenly slapped her hard on the right cheek, kicked her twice on the right leg, and maligned her in the presence of others, yelling that she would report to complainant’s mother-in-law that complainant worked as an agent “only for the purpose of sexual intercourse.” This caused contusions requiring medical attention. Complainant filed criminal cases for slander by deed and grave oral defamation. The MCTC initially found respondent guilty and imposed fines and civil indemnity, but the Regional Trial Court, on appeal, acquitted her based on reasonable doubt. In her defense, respondent claimed she was in Bogo on official time to verify a matter at the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) as instructed by her clerk of court. She admitted going to the appliance store to settle an account and talking with the complainant, stating she “swiped” complainant’s face without intent to harm because she was infuriated by complainant’s arrogance. Investigation revealed that respondent’s Daily Time Record (DTR) for January 6, 1993, indicated she was present at her office the entire day, contradicting her presence in Bogo. It was also established that respondent was a part-time sales agent for the Singer/World Appliance Center. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed a related falsification charge for lack of probable cause.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Vilma A. Bragat is administratively liable for her actions, including falsification of a public document, engaging in prohibited private employment, and conduct unbecoming a judiciary employee.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of falsification of a public document (her Daily Time Record) by making it appear she was at her office the whole day when she was actually in Bogo. Her claim of being on official business was not credible, as her sidetrip to the appliance store to settle personal accounts was not part of her official functions and the PAO verification could have been done by a co-employee residing in Bogo. The Court also found her guilty of violating Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5 (dated October 4, 1988), which prohibits judiciary officials and employees from engaging in private employment such as being an insurance or sales agent, as she admitted to being a part-time sales agent for the appliance center. Furthermore, while the acts of slapping and kicking may not constitute official misconduct, such scandalous behavior in a public place, especially while claiming to be on official trip, is conduct unbecoming of a judiciary employee and tends to degrade the dignity of the court. The dismissal of the criminal cases against her, based on an acquittal grounded on reasonable doubt, does not bar administrative liability, which requires a lower quantum of proof. The Court rejected the investigating judge’s recommendation of a 15-day suspension as too light. Respondent Vilma A. Bragat is ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality.