Facts:

The administrative case arose from an anonymous letter-complaint dated April 18, 1995, filed against Adela A. Geverola, who was serving as Clerk of Court IV at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Davao City. The complaint alleged multiple charges including the falsification of daily time records for her two nephews under her supervision, the continued collection of her salary while being abroad, an affair with a married man, and the acceptance of grease money for facilitating marriages. In response to the complaint, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) began an investigation and sought travel records from the Bureau of Immigration. Documentation received from the Bureau confirmed Geverola's travels from June 5, 1993, when she flew to Tokyo, to her return on July 17, 1993, thus establishing her absence in the country during a period when she claimed to be ill and had filed for sick leave. The OCA also reviewed her applications for leave which reflected inconsis

...

Facts:

Initiation of the Complaint

• An anonymous letter-complaint dated April 18, 1995, was directed to the Office of the Court Administrator.
• The complaint charged respondent Adela A. Geverola, Clerk of Court IV, MTCC, Davao City, with multiple offenses:
• Falsifying her daily time records pertaining to her two nephews under her supervision.
• Continuing to collect her salary despite being abroad on vacation.
• Engaging in an extramarital affair with a married man.
• Accepting money (an “agreasea” sum) from a Japayukisa in exchange for facilitating marriages.

Investigation and Verification of Travel Records

• Acting on the complaint, the Office of the Court Administrator sent a letter on August 2, 1996, to the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) to obtain the respondent’s travel records covering a ten-year period (1985–1995).
• The BID provided initial travel data in a letter dated September 6, 1996, documenting:
• Arrival on July 17, 1993, via Northwest Airlines from Seoul, South Korea, with specific details including flight number, passport number, and nationality.
• Departure on December 2, 1994, also documented with relevant travel information.
• A subsequent communication on September 24, 1996, sought further clarification of the travel records, and the BID furnished additional information, notably:
• Departure from Davao on June 5, 1993, with details of the flight to Tokyo, Japan, confirming that no further arrival records existed from December 1994 to October 1996.

Corroboration with Leave and Time Records

• The Office of the Court Administrator submitted a report on October 18, 1996, correlating the travel records with the records on file:
• An application for vacation leave dated June 1, 1993, indicating an 18-day leave period from June 7 to June 30, 1993, excluding weekends.
• An application for sick leave dated July 1, 1993, for 7 days (covering July 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, 1993).
• Records reflecting 5 days of forced leave from July 12 to July 16, 1993.
• A Medical Certificate dated July 1, 1993, issued by Dr. Natividad A. Amoroso of the Office of the City Health Officer, Davao City, which supported the sick leave application.

Prior Administrative Actions and Referral

• The complaint had previously been referred to the Office of the Ombudsman (docket number OMB-ADM-3-93-0911) and then to the National Bureau of Investigation for fact-finding.
• The NBI Supervising Agent recommended dismissal of the anonymous complaint for want of evidence, yet the investigation continued due to corroborative travel and leave records.

Evaluation of the Evidence and Findings

• The record from the BID clearly indicated that respondent left the country on June 5, 1993 (departing for Tokyo) and re-entered on July 17, 1993 (arriving from Seoul).
• This contradicted her application for sick leave dated July 1, 1993, thereby establishing that she was abroad when she alleged a bout of illness.
• The discrepancies led to the finding that respondent falsified her daily time record and leave application, with her conduct amounting to dishonesty and duplicity.
• The Office of the Court Administrator further recommended disciplinary measures, including a surprise financial audit and installation of bundy clocks to safeguard records, besides imposing sanctions on respondent and involved officials.

Respondent’s Explanation

• In her explanation dated January 3, 1997, respondent acknowledged receipt of the Court’s resolution (dated November 27, 1996), claiming:
• She filed her sick leave application on July 1, 1993, because she was very ill with “massive Allergy” and other debilitating symptoms.
• The Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Amoroso and the approval by Executive Judge Virginia HofileAa-Europa were submitted in obedience to required administrative procedures.
• She cited her long service record (39 years in government; 22 years in the judiciary) and asserted that administrative cases had been continuously leveled against her as part of a concerted effort to harass and discredit her.
• Despite these assertions, her explanation was not found credible given the irrefutable travel records showing her absence from the Philippines during the period in question.

Final Administrative Determination

• A Memorandum dated May 13, 1997, from the Office of the Court Administrator found respondent guilty of:
• Falsification of her daily time record and sick leave application.
• Dishonesty for receiving overpayment (P 2,308.19) during the period when she was absent from the country.
• The Court, upon careful perusal of all evidence and records, upheld the findings of falsification and dishonesty.

Issue:

• Whether respondent Adela A. Geverola falsified her daily time record and application for sick leave by claiming illness on July 1, 1993, while she was actually abroad.
• Whether the travel records obtained from the Bureau of Immigration sufficiently contradicted respondent’s leave and medical certificate claims.
• Whether the administrative process was properly followed in investigating, verifying, and correlating the evidence from various records and communications.
• Whether respondent’s explanation regarding her alleged severe illness and the subsequent approval of her sick leave is credible in view of the established travel records.
• Whether the imposition of the penalty (suspension and reimbursement of overpaid salary/allowance) is commensurate with the gravity of the offense and her long service record.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)