Facts:

This administrative matter involves Rosalind M. Apaga, the complainant and Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Abulug, Cagayan, versus Phoebe P. Ponce, the respondent and Court Interpreter I of the same court. The complaint, dated August 11, 1994, alleges various acts of misconduct committed by Ponce, including dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, incompetence, physical unfitness, loafing around during office hours, engaging in actions unbecoming a public servant, and lobbying for personal interest. The Office of the Court Administrator, on August 25, 1994, referred the matter to Executive Judge Adrian N. Pagalilauan of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, for an investigation and a report.

Following an extensive inquiry, Judge Pagalilauan submitted a report on December 13, 1994, confirming that Apaga had presented sufficient evidence to substantiate her allegations against Ponce, particularly regarding dishonesty in public

...

Facts:

Background and Commencement of the Case

• A verified complaint was filed by Rosalind M. Apaga, Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Abulug, Cagayan, on August 11, 1994.
• The complaint was filed against Phoebe P. Ponce, Court Interpreter I of the same court, and detailed numerous allegations including dishonesty in office, gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, incompetence, physical unfitness, and loafing around during office hours.
• Additional charges asserted that Ponce had committed acts unbecoming of a public servant and had engaged in lobbying for personal interest.

Referral and Investigation Process

• The Office of the Court Administrator, through its First Indorsement dated August 25, 1994, referred the matter to Executive Judge Adrian N. Pagalilauan of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan.
• Judge Pagalilauan undertook an extensive investigation that involved holding hearings and gathering testimonies from the complainant and other witnesses.
• On December 13, 1994, after completing the hearings, Judge Pagalilauan submitted his Report and Recommendation, advising that Ponce be penalized for demonstrated shortcomings related to dishonesty, loafing during office hours, and acts unbecoming of a public servant.

Presentation of Evidence and Witness Testimonies

• Testimonies were presented by multiple witnesses, which collectively painted a picture of recurrent unprofessional and erratic behavior by Ponce.
• Jerry Pacis, the Court Process Server, testified that although he did not have personal conflict with Ponce, he confirmed that her behavior was inappropriate by noting instances where she engaged in unprofessional conduct in the presence of other court personnel and visitors.
• Mrs. Salvacion “Sally” Carpio stated that Ponce routinely slept during duty hours, engaged in quarrels with co-employees, and was involved in a physical altercation during a preliminary investigation where she aggressively pointed and touched a colleague’s head.
• Rosalind Apaga, the complainant, recalled several specific dates—February 16, March 10, March 11, and July 1, 1994—when Ponce was absent from her designated duties, as corroborated by the attendance reports (Exhibit C and C-1).
• Other witnesses, including a court stenographer (Phoebe Fuentes), Court Aide Antonio de los Santos, and COMELEC Clerk Edward Montenegro, provided additional details:
• Fuentes described Ponce’s habitual resting, consistent failure to perform assigned tasks during trials, and her tendency to shift her responsibilities to the Clerk of Court.
• Antonio de los Santos recounted witnessing Ponce sleeping on the bench and later moving to another office area during her scheduled duty hours.
• Edward Montenegro confirmed that Ponce’s presence and conduct in the office environment were disruptive and contributed to a lack of decorum.
• A significant incident on July 22, 1994, was highlighted during which Ponce was involved in a physical altercation with her co-employee, Mrs. Carpio, further evidencing her failure to maintain the decorum expected of a court employee.
• There was also reference to prior inter-office conflicts, including an earlier administrative matter initiated by Ponce against the former Clerk of Court for charges of dishonesty and other misconduct, a complaint ultimately dismissed by the Third Division of the Court.

Documentary Evidence and Contested Logbook Incident

• Respondent Ponce admitted to having the logbook machine-copied and argued that her action was justified as she held the position of Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Clerk’s Office at that time.
• Ponce contended that her absences were attributable to a lingering medical ailment, a claim supported by duly approved applications for leave and corresponding medical certifications.
• However, the unauthorized photocopying of the logbook was met with disapproval based on established rules, specifically noting that court employees must not remove or duplicate court documents without proper authorization.

Findings of the Investigating Authorities

• The investigating judge’s Report and Recommendation found that the evidence sufficiently demonstrated Ponce’s guilt on the counts of dishonesty in public office, loafing on duty, and engaging in acts unbecoming of a public servant.
• Other charges, such as gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, incompetence, physical unfitness, and lobbying for personal interest, were not supported by sufficient evidence and were thereby dismissed.
• The investigative findings reflected that the contentious atmosphere and personal animosity between the parties contributed to a decline in work morale and efficiency within the court.

Conclusion of the Investigation

• Based on the comprehensive review of testimonies and documentary evidence, the Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad recommended a one-month suspension without pay for Ponce.
• The report underscored that Ponce’s conduct was not only a breach of administrative rules, but also detrimental to the integrity and dignity of the judiciary.

Issue:

Whether the evidence presented sufficiently substantiates the charges of dishonesty in public office, particularly in relation to the photocopying of the logbook without proper authority.

• Evaluation of whether Ponce’s act of removing or duplicating official records for personal ends contravened established protocols governing the custody and handling of court documents.

Whether Ponce’s conduct during office hours—including sleeping on duty, engaging in violent altercations, and provoking confrontations with co-workers—constituted behavior unbecoming of a public servant.

• Consideration of whether such conduct undermines the professional decorum and integrity expected of court employees.

Whether the disciplinary measures imposed (i.e., a one-month suspension without pay) were warranted and commensurate with the gravity of the proven administrative offenses.

• Analysis of the extent to which personal animosity and internal office conflicts contributed to the disruptive working environment and how that should influence administrative sanctions.

• Whether the justification offered by the respondent regarding her absences (supported by medical certification and approved leave) sufficiently nullified related allegations of inefficiency and incompetence.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)