Contreras v. Monge
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This administrative matter originated from a complaint filed by Atty. Lelu P. Contreras, Clerk of Court VI and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City, against respondent Teresita O. Monge, a Clerk IV in the same court. The complaint alleged gross insubordination, stemming from an incident where respondent Monge allegedly verbally assaulted Atty. Contreras. The dispute appears to have been triggered by a memorandum issued by Atty. Contreras to respondent Monge regarding the latter's failure to provide proper notice of absence during a four-week sick leave, as required by Civil Service Rules. Respondent Monge allegedly responded with disrespectful language and actions upon her return to work. Procedural History: Following the complaint and respondent Monge's comment, which included countercharges against Atty. Contreras, the case was referred for investigation. After Judge Mulry P. Mendez inhibited herself, RTC Vice-Executive Judge Josue F. Ernacio was assigned to investigate. Judge Ernacio's report found that while respondent Monge failed to give notice of her absence, there was insufficient evidence of disrespect. He also addressed the countercharges, finding some merit in the complaint against Atty. Contreras for directing a subordinate to perform unofficial tasks. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) largely agreed with the investigating judge, recommending a reprimand for Monge and an advisory for Contreras. The Petition: This resolution addresses the findings and recommendations from the investigating judge and the OCA. The Supreme Court, in reviewing the case, agreed that respondent Monge's failure to notify her office of her absences constituted a violation of Civil Service Rules, warranting a reprimand and a warning against future similar offenses. Regarding complainant Atty. Contreras, the Court acknowledged her admission of errors in directing a subordinate to perform extra work but noted her lack of prior administrative offenses. Consequently, Atty. Contreras was advised to be more circumspect and diligent in her duties. The Court formally reprimanded Monge and advised Contreras.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Teresita O. Monge is guilty of gross insubordination for verbally assaulting complainant Atty. Lelu P. Contreras. Whether respondent Teresita O. Monge is liable for failing to give notice of her absence due to sickness as required by Civil Service Rules. Whether complainant Atty. Lelu P. Contreras is liable for administrative offenses based on the counter-allegations made by respondent Monge.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Teresita O. Monge not guilty of gross insubordination but reprimanded her for failing to notify her immediate superior of her absences in violation of Civil Service Rules, with a warning against repetition. Complainant Atty. Lelu P. Contreras was advised to be more circumspect and diligent in the performance of her duties as Clerk of Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found no substantial evidence to prove that respondent Monge was guilty of gross insubordination for verbally assaulting complainant Atty. Contreras. While the complainant alleged verbal abuse, the investigating judge found insufficient evidence to establish disrespect. The Court gave weight to the findings of the investigating judge who had the opportunity to hear the witnesses and assess their credibility. Therefore, the charge of gross insubordination against Monge was dismissed. On Issue 2: The Court found respondent Monge liable for failing to notify her office of her absences due to sickness, which is a violation of Civil Service Rules. Rule XVI, Section 53 of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations requires employees to give notice of absence to their immediate supervisor or agency head, even if they file for sick leave upon their return. Monge failed to do so, only making contact after receiving a memorandum. This failure to comply with the notice requirement, though considered a light offense, warranted disciplinary action in the form of a reprimand and a warning. On Issue 3: Regarding the counter-allegations against Atty. Contreras, the Court noted that Atty. Contreras admitted to engaging in cross-stitching during office hours, though she claimed it did not affect her work. She also admitted directing a subordinate to perform work outside his duties. The investigating judge found the alteration of Monge's performance rating to be valid and that Atty. Contreras did not commit misconduct in a separate incident involving an air-conditioning unit. While Atty. Contreras's actions of assigning unofficial tasks and engaging in personal activities during office hours were improper, the Court considered her admission of mistakes and her prior clean record. Consequently, instead of imposing a penalty, Atty. Contreras was advised to be more circumspect and diligent in her duties, recognizing that public office is a public trust.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that failure to notify one's immediate superior or agency head of an absence due to sickness, despite filing for sick leave upon return, is a violation of Civil Service Rules and warrants disciplinary action. The Court also affirmed that requiring court personnel to perform work outside their official duties during office hours is improper and contrary to the principle that public office is a public trust, warranting a warning or advice to the erring official.