Facts:

This case involves Judge Manuel R. Aquino, a complainant, versus Jocelyn C. Fernandez, who held the position of Stenographer I at the Municipal Trial Court of Caba, La Union. The events unfolded when Judge Aquino submitted a "Report/Findings" to the Office of the Court Administrator, dated November 16, 1998, recommending disciplinary action against Fernandez for her failure to type a draft order in Criminal Case No. 4197, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Jose Runes, et al." Despite explicit instructions provided by Judge Aquino on November 4, 1998, Fernandez failed to accomplish this task. Upon inquiry, Fernandez admitted to not completing the order and attributed her inaction to her focus on preparing 18 copies of her daily time record and her unfiled leaves of absence for November 4 to 6, 1998. This was not the first instance of misconduct; she had previously been reprimanded for unauthorized absences: first in October 1993 due to playing mahjong ins

...

Facts:

Background and Initial Complaint

• Complainant Judge Manuel R. Aquino, of the Municipal Trial Court of Caba, La Union, directed respondent Jocelyn C. Fernandez, a Stenographer I, to type a draft order for Criminal Case No. 4197 (“People of the Philippines vs. Jose Runes”) on November 4, 1998.
• Respondent failed to comply with the instruction, an omission that formed the basis of the complaint.
• When asked for a written explanation, respondent admitted her failure and promised not to repeat the offense, attributing her negligence to personal workload involving the preparation of 18 copies of her daily time record and a leave of absence endorsement.

Prior Conduct and Disciplinary History

• In October 1993, respondent was reprimanded by Clerk of Court Isabel D. Marquez for her unauthorized absence on a day she allegedly played mahjong, and for repetitive tardiness and errors in her work.
• In October 1996, Judge Aquino reprimanded respondent for further unauthorized absences occurring on October 8–11 and October 18, 1996.
• The quality of respondent’s stenographic notes had been consistently criticized—submitted late and marred with frequent errors—which contributed to a low performance rating.

Administrative Proceedings and Investigation

• Judge Aquino submitted a detailed “Report/Findings” on November 16, 1998, recommending disciplinary action against respondent for neglect of duty and unauthorized absences.
• Several annexes were attached to his report documenting:
• His letter dated November 5, 1998 requesting an explanation from respondent.
• Respondent’s explanation letter dated November 9, 1998, where she promised not to repeat the offense.
• A memorandum by Clerk of Court Isabel D. Marquez reprimanding respondent for her 1993 absence and conduct.
• A memorandum dated November 6, 1996, indicating reprimand for the October 1996 unauthorized absences.
• The report was treated as regular administrative matter and was referred on April 2, 2001, to the Acting Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bauang for further investigation and recommendation.

Findings by the Investigating Judge

• Judge Rose Mary R. Molina-Alim of the Regional Trial Court, Bauang (Branch 33) found respondent guilty on several counts:
• Failure to type the draft order on November 4, 1998.
• Unauthorized absences without prior leave for November 4–6, 1998.
• Previous incidents of unauthorized absence in October 1993 and October 1996, including leaving work to play mahjong.
• Frequent submission of stenographic notes that contained errors and were not timely.
• Despite these findings, the investigating judge noted mitigating circumstances:
• The respondent’s unauthorized absences were not habitual or frequent.
• The failure to type the draft order was a one-time incident.
• The errant incident of playing mahjong was isolated.
• The respondent showed remorse by practically admitting all shortcomings and promising not to repeat them.
• Based on such considerations, a penalty of one month suspension without pay was recommended, accompanied by a stern warning against a recurrence.

Subsequent Evaluation and Resolution

• In a Resolution dated May 27, 2002, the Report and Recommendation were referred to the Office of the Court Administrator.
• Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez concurred with the investigation findings.
• However, upon review, the Court identified issues regarding the authority of previous reprimands:
• The reprimand by Clerk of Court Marquez (October 1993) was deemed improper due to lack of appropriate authority.
• The reprimand for October 1996 incidents was considered valid only for the October 18 occurrence, while the sick leave for October 8–11 was acceptable under existing rules, as a medical certificate was not required for absences of less than five days.
• Ultimately, only two charges remained:
• Failure to type the draft order on November 4, 1998.
• Unauthorized absence from November 4 to 6, 1998.
• Recognizing mitigating factors and the isolated nature of the offenses, the Court modified the penalty originally recommended.

Final Outcome

• The Court found respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing to type the draft order.
• While the unauthorized absence was noted, it was not considered sufficiently detrimental to warrant an additional penalty.
• In view of the mitigating circumstances—namely, the respondent’s candid admission, repentance, and promise to improve—a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) was imposed in lieu of suspension.
• A stern warning was issued, cautioning that any repetition of similar offenses in the future would be met with harsher disciplinary actions.

Issue:

• Whether respondent’s failure to type the draft order on November 4, 1998, constituted simple neglect of duty warranting administrative discipline.
• Whether the unauthorized absences from November 4 to 6, 1998, without filing the requisite leave application, justified additional penalty under the applicable civil service rules.
• Whether earlier reprimands issued by a Clerk of Court, lacking the proper authority, should be considered in assessing respondent’s administrative liability.
• Whether the isolated nature of the offenses and the mitigating circumstances (admission of fault, repentance, and promise to improve) should lead to a reduced penalty, as opposed to the initially recommended suspension.
• How to reconcile the need for strict standards in the judiciary with the principle of proportionate punishment in cases of light offenses.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)