Roman v. Fortaleza

A.M. No. P-10-2865 (November 22, 2010)

Facts:

This administrative case originated from a letter-complaint dated May 24, 2007, submitted by an anonymous informant to former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. The informant alleged various irregularities involving Virgilio M. Fortaleza, the Clerk of Court at the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Catanauan, Quezon. The informant claimed that Fortaleza, who is married to stenographer Norberta Fortaleza and is the brother-in-law of process server Gavino Otico Ramos, engaged in nepotism by giving higher performance ratings to his relatives compared to other employees.

The informant further alleged that Fortaleza coerced her into signing blank performance evaluation forms and that she was not evaluated for the period from July to December 2006. Additionally, the informant accused Fortaleza of attending cockfights during office hours and allowing his wife to sign his daily time record in his absence. The informant requested confidentiality regarding her identity.

The Office of the Chief Justice referred the complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for investigation. The OCA informed the informant that her allegations of abusive conduct could not proceed without her identity being disclosed, as her testimony was essential for substantiating those claims. However, the OCA decided to investigate the other allegations, such as attending cockfights and tampering with attendance records.

Executive Judge Aurora V. Maqueda-Roman conducted the investigation and submitted a Report and Recommendation on January 2, 2008. She found merit in the claim that Fortaleza had been "loafing on his job" and recommended a fine of P3,000.00, warning that any repetition of similar acts would result in more severe penalties. However, she dismissed the other charges due to a lack of evidence.

In subsequent court resolutions, the case was treated as a formal complaint against Fortaleza, who admitted to attending cockfights on weekends but denied doing so during office hours. He explained that he occasionally left the office to smoke, read newspapers, or discuss legal matters with the police.

The OCA later recommended that Fortaleza be held liable for loafing during office hours and suggested a six-month suspension without pay. The investigation revealed that various witnesses testified to Fortaleza's frequent absences from the office during working hours, although none confirmed that he attended cockfights during those times.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether Virgilio M. Fortaleza was guilty of loafing during office hours.
2. Whether the allegations of nepotism and abusive conduct were substantiated.
3. What penalty should be imposed on Fortaleza if found guilty of the charges.

Arguments:

• For the Complainant:

  • The informant's allegations, supported by witness testimonies, indicated that Fortaleza frequently left the office during working hours, which constituted loafing.
  • The conduct of Fortaleza and his relatives in the workplace reflected a lack of professionalism and responsibility, undermining public trust in the judiciary.

• For the Respondent:

  • Fortaleza admitted to leaving the office but claimed it was for legitimate reasons such as smoking or reading, and he denied attending cockfights during office hours.
  • He argued that the testimonies did not provide a clear basis for the allegations of loafing, as the duration of his absences varied among witnesses.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court adopted the findings of the OCA, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the charge of loafing against Fortaleza. The court emphasized that court personnel must devote their official time to public service and adhere strictly to office hours to maintain public respect for the justice system. The court noted that loafing, defined as frequent unauthorized absences during regular office hours, is a grave offense under the Civil Service Commission Rules.

The testimonies from various witnesses established that Fortaleza had indeed been loafing, with some reporting absences lasting from two to three hours multiple times a week. Although the respondent's explanations for his absences were self-serving and unconvincing, the court found no evidence to support the other allegations of nepotism and abusive conduct.

In determining the penalty, the court considered Fortaleza's over 30 years of service in the judiciary as a mitigating factor. Consequently, the court imposed the minimum penalty of a six-month suspension without pay, with a warning that any future violations would result in more severe penalties.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. Court personnel are required to commit their official time exclusively to their duties during working hours, as mandated by the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
2. Loafing is classified as a grave offense under the Civil Service Commission Rules, punishable by suspension or dismissal depending on the severity and frequency of the offense.
3. The court has the discretion to temper penalties with mercy, considering the length of service and the goal of improving public service rather than merely punishing the errant employee.