l\epuulic of tbe Jbilippiueg

~upreme lourt
J-!!lanila

THIRD DIVISION

IN RE: INCORRECT ENTRIES A.M. No. 15-05-50-MCTC

IN THE DAILY TIME RECORD
OF MS. LORNA M. MARTIN, Present:
Court Stenographer I, Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Sta. CAGUIOA,
lgnacia-Mayantoc-San Clemente- Chairperson,
San Jose, Tarlac INTING,
GAERLAN,
DIMAAMP AO, and
SINGH, JJ.

Promulgated:
February 28, 2024
x---------------------------------------------------------~~~~-1::~~"----------------------x

DECISION

PERCURIAM:

In a letter' dated September 3, 2014 addressed to the Office of Court

Administrator (OCA), signed by Judge StelaMarie Q. Gandia-Asuncion (Judge
Gandia-Asuncion) of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Sta.
Ignacia-Mayantoc-San Clemente-San Jose, Tarlac, that Ms. Loma M. Martin
(Martin), Comi Stenographer I of the same court, was reported for her incorrect
declarations in her Daily Time Record (DTR) for August and May 2014 .

Specifically, Judge Gandia-Asuncion informed the OCA that she signed

Martin's DTR for the said months ''with reservation" as the latter entered in the
Registry Book of Attendance (logbook) that on August 1 1, 2014, she aITived at
1:00 p.m. and left at 5 :00 p.m., when she did not report for work that afternoon. 2
The incident happened again on ]\,fay 6, 2014, wherein Martin logged that she
arrived in the office at 8:00 a.m. and left at 12:00 p.m. when in fact, she was

1
Rollo, p. 2.
!J
 Decision 2 A.M. No. 15-05-50-MCTC

not present that mon1ing. Judge Gandia-Asuncion also noted that Martin made
incorrect entries in the logbook on May 16, 2014. 3

In a p t Endorsement4 dated May 26, 2015, Martin was required to

comment on Judge Gandia-Asuncion's letter. Mai1in submitted her Comment5
on September 16, 2015.

Martin vehemently denied the allegations against her. She claimed that
she reported for work on August 11, 2014 and in the morning of May 6, 2014.
She averred that in the latter insta!lce, she realized that she forgot to write her
name and merely rectified the same by writing it that same afternoon. She
nevertheless admitted that she refused to comply with the order for her to go to
Judge Gandia-Asuncion's chambers and explain, justifying that she was not
feeling well and was the assigned stenographer for that day. Martin maintained
that OIC Clerk of Court Rodelio A. Pedroche (OIC-COC Pedroche) was
motivated by ill feelings towards her. She also accused her officemates who
attested against her and Judge Gandia-Asuncion of not performing their duties
properly. She averred that they are the ones who are always absent but reflected
otherwise in their DTRs. Martin asserted that Judge Gandia-Asuncion had been
"so unfair" to her in the past forcing her to work even though she is sick, that
is why she refused to receive nor read the Memorandum issued to her by the
former. 6

The Court, in its Resolution 7 dated April 18, 2018, referred the
administrative matter to Judge Rixon M. Garong (Judge Garong) of Branch 37,
Regional Trial Court (RTC) ofLingayen, Pangasinan, for investigation, report,
and recommendation as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 68,
Camiling, Tarlac pursuant to Administrative Order No. 217-2017 dated
December 27, 2017.

Judge Garong required Judge Gandia-Asuncion and the other

complainants who joined her namely: OIC-COC Pedroche, Genelyn C.
Gragasin, Maranatha Gracel A. Lardizabal, Von A. Villanueva, Dioso S.
Tomas, and Maynard L. Millado, all of whom are employees of the MCTC of
Sta. Ignacia-Mayantoc-San Clemente-San Jose, Tarlac, to respond to Martin's
Cmnment dated August 20, 2015; and for Martin to file her sworn Rejoinder
thereto.

Id at 3. Letter dated Jun e 4, 2014.

4
I d at 18.
Id. at 110. In vestigation report of Judge Rixon M. Garong dated August 23 , 20 l 8.
6 Id at 20- 24. Comment/ An swer of Lorna 1\.1. Martin dated August 20, 20 ! 5.
7
Id. at 11 !-- 11 2.
 Decision 3 A.M. No. 15-05-50-MCTC

Judge Gandia-Asuncion submitted her Comment with annexes on July

31 , 2018, whereas the rest of the complainants filed their sworn separate
comment on August 1, 2018. During the date set for conference, Martin
manifested that she will no longer file a rejoinder. 8

On October 2, 2018, Judge Garong submitted his Investigation Report, 9

recommending on the basis of his investigation:

From the foregoing, the undersigned foW1d LORNA M. MARTIN to

be liable for tampering records, specifically the logbook on 6 May 2014
entries. Similarly, she can be held liable for the same infractions committed
on 16 May 2014 and 11 August 2014.

Also, based on the foregoing facts as supported by sworn statements

by MCTC personnel, respondent LORNA M. MARTIN exhibited
insubordination to lawful orders not only from [Judge Gandia-Asw1cion] but
also from her OIC-Clerk of Cow1.

Hence, it is recommended that the appropriate disciplinary sanctions

commensurate to her infractions be imposed on [Martin].

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 10

In his report, Judge Garong held that an examination of the logbook

shows that Martin tampered with the entries for May 6, 2014, May 16, 2014
and August 11, 2014. Judge Garong also noted that Martin committed willful
disobedience to her superiors. Considering these infractions, Judge Garong
recommended that disciplinary sanctions be imposed upon Martin. 11

The Investigation Report was refe1Ted to the OCA via the Court's
Resolution 12 dated October 15, 2018. On December 7, 2018, the OCA,
evaluating the complaint, issued its recommendation:

In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended for the

consideration of the Honorable Com1 that:

1. respondent Court Stenographer I Lorna M. Martin, Municipal

Circuit Trial Comt, Sta. Ignacia-Mayamoc-San Clemente-San Jose, Sta.
Ignacia, Tarlac, be found GUILTY of dishonesty and insubordination;

2. respondent Court Stenographer I Martin be METED with the

mitigated penalty of SUSPENSION from the service for two (2) months
without pay; and

Id
Id. at 110- 125.
10
Id. at 125.
11
Id. at 112- 11 3.
12
I d. at 138.
 Decision 4 A.M. No. 15-05-50-MCTC

3. respondent Co urt Stenographer I Maiiin, be STERNLY

WARNED that the commission of U1e same or similar offenses in the future
shall be dealt with more severel y. 13 (E!nphasis in the original)

In so ruling, the OCA affirmed the factual findings and conclusion of the
Investigating Judge. It was found that "Martin committed an act of dishonesty
by tampering with the DTR or logbook of her court attendance on May 16,
2014 and August 11 , 2014." The OCA also found out that Martin should be held
liable for disobeying the lawful orders of her superiors-Judge Gandia-
Asuncion and OIC-COC Pedroche, committed through her willful refusal to
receive the copies of the memoranda issued by her superiors to her and the
comment of Judge Gandia-Asuncion. 14

The OCA found Martin guilty of dishonesty and insubordination. Noting

that this is the first time that l\!Iartin committed the offenses charged, the OCA
recommended that she be meted only with the penalty of suspension for a
period of two months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. 15

The issue presented before the Court is whether Martin conunitted the
acts charged and if so, whether the same merit administrative sanction.

After due consideration, the Court adopts the factual conclusions by the
OCA, but modify the penalty.

Accomplishing the DTR is a personal undertaking. It is evident that by

completing the record, the employee must truthfully and accurately reflect the
time of his or her arrival and departure from the office. Failure to declare
truthfully such information not only reveals dishonesty but also shows blatant
disregard of office rules. 16

Jurisprudence is clear in that the falsification through tampering of an

official document such as the DTR is a form of dishonesty that amounts to a
grave offense. It is grave because of its possible deleterious effects on
government service. 17 "At the same time, it is also an act of dishonesty, which
violates fundamental principles of public accountability and integrity. Under
Civil Service regulations, falsification of an official document and dishonesty
are distinct offenses, but both ma y be committed in one act, as in this case." 18

13
Id. at 143- 144.
14
Id. at 143.
15
Id. at I 00.
16 Samonte v. Roden, 818 Ph il. 289, 29) (.20 17) [Per J . Peraita, Second Di vision].
17
Office ofche Court Ad111inistratur v. Kasilag, 68 8 Phil. 232, :238 (201 2) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
1s Id.
 Decision 5 A.M. No. 15-05-50-MCTC

In here, there is substantia.l evidence that Martin falsified her DTR on

May 6, 2014, May 16, 2014 and August J l , 2014. On this score, the Court notes
that the OCA in an oversight, merely noted violations for May 16, 2014 and
August 11, 2014 when it summarized, refe1Ted to, and adopted Judge Garong's
report. Evaluating the evidence presented, the Court sustains the finding that
the tampering of the DTR happened on the three dates stated. The photocopies
of the DTR of Martin 19 and the logbook20 showing entries for the questioned
dates, the certification2 1 issued by OIC-COC Pedroche, the joint affidavit22 of
Martin's officemates and employees of the MCTC of Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac and
the sworn comment/reply of Judge Asuncion; all suppo1i the conclusion that
Martin indeed committed falsification. It was established that on August 11,
2014, Martin made it appear that she was present the entire day, when in fact
she did not report in that afternoon. Martin committed a similar act when she
made it appear that she was present on May 6, 2014 by erasing with the use of
a correction fluid, the logbook entry for May 6, 2014. Martin also made
incorrect entries in the logbook corresponding to May 16, 2014. Hence, the
entries indicated in her DTR of the time of her arrival and departure were not
faithfully and accurately declared.

Contrary to the findings of the OCA, the act of falsification of the DTR
does not constitute simple dishonesty but serious dishonesty punishable by
dismissal for the first offense. At any rate, the act of falsification is considered
as a gross misconduct, 23 classified as a serious charge under Section 14 of Rule
140.

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action,

more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public
officer. It is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or
standard of behavior and to constitute an administrative offense, the
misconduct should relate to or be connected with the perfonnance of the
official functions and duties of a public officer. In order to differentiate gross
misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent
to violate the law, and not a mere error of judgment, or flagrant disregard of
established rule, must be manifest in the former.

On the other hand, dishonesty means "a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or
defraud; untrustworthiness: lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or
integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to
defraud, deceive or betray."' 24

19
Rollu, pp. 5 and 7.
20 Id at 11 - !J.
21
Id at 17.
22 Id at 14- 16 . Affidavit Cornplainr dalcd Dt:cernber 4. 2017.
n Anonymous Complaint Against Clerk :,'./ Co urt V Atty. C!tenctJ, et ai. o/RTC. Branch 72, !vfa/abon City,
879 Phil. 73 , I08 (2 020) [I'er Cw·iam. En Bc,nc].
24
Id. at I 02.
 Decision 6 A.M. No . 15-05-50-MCTC

Maiiin's actuations clearly demonstrate an intent to violate the law, as

she was found to have committed falsification of her DTR more than once. She
persistently disregarded a basic rule, and refused to acknowledge her mistake.
Martin 's act of tampering the logbook and making false statements in her DTRs
undeniably constitute gross misconduct and serious dishonesty.

With respect to other charge, Martin was found to have committed gross
insubordination when she refused to follow the order of Judge Gandia-
Asuncion to enter her chambers and discuss the verbal report of OIC-COC
Pedroche that she failed to make proper entries in her DTR. 25

In this case, Martin's conduct towards Judge Gandia-Asuncion

constitutes gross insubordination. Gross insubordination is defined as the
"inexplicable and unjustified refusal to obey some order that a superior is
entitled to give and have obeyed, and imports a willful or intentional disregard
of the lawful and reasonable instructions of a superior. It is manifested by a
"brazen disrespect for and defiance towards one's superiors." 26

Judge Gandia-Asuncion as the chief of office, acted within her authority

when she summoned Martin to explain the report of OIC-COC Pedroche.
However, Martin refused to heed the order and instead rudely questioned Judge
Gandia-Asuncion's authority. Clearly, Martin's actions amount to gross
insubordination, as well as gross disobedience and disrespect to the judicial
authority and the position of Judge Gandia-Asuncion.

The Court in A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC, amended the Rules of Couii and
included personnel of the lower courts within the coverage of Rule 140. 27 The
penalty to be imposed upon Martin shall then be in accordance with such Rule.
Section 14, of Rule 140 classifies gross misconduct and serious dishonesty, as
well as gross insubordination as serious charges.

Under Section 17 of the same Rule, a respondent found guilty of a

serious charge shall be imposed with any of the following sanctions:

Section 17. Sanctions . -

(1) lfthe respondent is gt:ilty of a serious charge, any of the following

sanctions shall be imposed:

- -- -- --- - -
25 Rollo, p. 52 . M emorandum of Judge Cand ia-A~ 1rnc ion dated lv'lay 8, 20 l -t
26 Santiago v_ Fernando, A. TYL No. P-2? -05 3, January 17, 2023 [Per J_ Rosario, En Banc].
7
~ Rul e 140- Discip;ine of Mem bers. Officials. Employees, and Personnel o f the Judic iary. See A. M. No.
2 1-08-09-SC dated February 22, 20n. See also Office of ihe Court Administrator v. Salao , A. M. No. P-
22 -0:'i6 , Jun e 22, 2022 [ Per J_lnting, f hird ~)i visionJ.
 ,,.,
Decision I A.M. No. 15-05-50-MCTC

(a) Dismissal fr0ir. sen·ice, forfeiture of all or part of

the benefits as the Supreme Comi may determine, and
disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any
public office, including government-owned or -controlled
corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of
benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;

(b) Suspension from office without salary and other

benefits for more tha11 six (6) months but not exceeding one
year; or

(c) A fine 0f more than [PHP] 100,000.00 but not

exceeding [PHP] 200,000.00

Considering that Martin is guilty of multiple offenses, Section 21 of Rule

140 applies as to the imposable penalty. Section 21 reads:

SECTION 21. Penalty for Multiple Offenses. - If the respondent is

found liable for more than one (1) offense arising from separate acts or
omissions in a single administrative proceeding, the Court shall impose
separate penalties for each offense. Should the aggregate of the imposed
penalties exceed five (5) years of suspension or [PHP] 1,000,000.00 in fines,
the respondent may, in the discretion of the Supreme Court, be meted with
the penalty of dismissal from service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits
as may be determined, and disqualification from reinstatement or
appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled
corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case
include accrued leave credits.

On the other hand, is a single act/omission constitutes more than one

( 1) offense, the respondent shall sti 11 be fow1d liable for all such offenses, but
shall nonetheless, only be meted with the appropriate penalty for the most
serious offense.

While the Court has the power to exercise its discretion under Section 19
of Rule 140, particularly with respect to appreciation of mitigating
circumstances to lessen the penalty, contrary to the findings of the OCA, there
is no room for mitigation of the penalty in this case, considering the gravity of
the infractions and lack of remorse on the part of Martin. As previously held,
the Court cannot grant leniency to those ·who are found guilty of serious
offenses with deliberate intent to violate the rules. 28

Significantly, this is not I\fartin' s first transgression, in I-Ion. Gandia-

Asuncion v A-fartl,n,2 9 the Co1i1i found I\!fart1n guilty of six counts of Gross
Misconduct for her belligerent behHvior ,owards her superiors an<l co-workers

28
Cf Anunymuus Complain: ;/g,;;im;r C!crk u((;ou:·; /· Ally. Cue>1 co, et a/. of RTC, Branch l2, Malabon
City, supra n0te ?3.
29
A.M. No. P-22-042, Jline 28, 2022 .
 Decision 8 A.M. No. 15-05-50-MCTC

and six counts of Gross Insubordination for her repeated defiance of the lawful
directives of her officers. The Court also sanctioned Martin for her
disobedience to the Court~s directive for her to undergo psychological
evaluation despite her prior agreement thereto. For these infractions, the Court
imposed penalty upon Martin as follows:

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Loma M. Martin, Com1

Stenographer I, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac, is
found GUILTY of violations of the Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel, specifically six (6) counts of Gross Misconduct and six (6)
counts of Gross Insubordination.

She is immediately DISMISSED from the service, with

FORFEITURE of all benefits, except her accrued leave credits, if any. Her
Civil Service eligibility is CANCELLED and she is BARRED from taking
any future Civil Service Examination. She is PERPETUALLY
DISQUALIFIED from re-employment in any government instrumentality,
including government-owned and controlled corporations.

For disobeying the order of the Court to undergo a psychological

assessment despite her prior agreement thereto, and for ignoring the
subsequent calls and messages of the Court's psychologist, she is likewise
ordered to PAY a FINE of P36,000.00.

A PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER is issued against

respondent and in favor of Presiding Judge Ste la Marie Q. Gandia-Asuncion,
Officer-in-Charge Clerk of Court Rodelio A. Pedroche, Court Stenographer
I Genelyn C. Gragasin, Court Stenographer I Maranatha Grace! A.
Lardizabal, Court Clerk II Von A. Villanueva, Process Server Dioso S.
Tomas, and Court Aide I Meynard L. Millado:

1) PROHIBITING respondent from threatening to commit or

committing personally or through another, any acts of violence against any
of the aforenamed complainants herein;

2) DIRECTING respondent to stay away from the aforenamed

complainants and their residences and place of work at the Hall of Justice of
Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac within a radius of at least five hundred (500) meters; and

3) RESTRAINING respondent from harassing, annoymg,

contacting, or otherwise communicating with any of the aforenamed
complainants vvhether directly or indirectly.

This Decision is without prejudice to any criminal and/or civil cases

which may be filed against re.spondenl. Let a copy of this Decision be
attached to her records \\•itl i thi s Cow1 and furnished the Civil Service
Commission.

SO ORDEREU.30 (Emphasis in the original)

30 Id.

cJ
Decision A.M. No. 15-05-50-MCTC

To be sure, while the said case tik~wise involved the same personalities
and similar acts constituting Gross JVIi~conduct and Gross Insubordination, the
instant charges arose from different incidents. The acts of Gross Misconduct
involved in the earlier case referred to lvlartin's rude behavior as referred to in
the following Memoranda: November 26. 2015, April 28, 2016, and April 5,
2017; as well as Martin's offensive behavior towards Judge Gandia-Asuncion
on three separate incidents which occurred on November 24, 2017. 31 Whereas,
the charge for Gross Misconduct in this case involved Martin's act of tampering
the logbook and making false statements in her DTR. On the other hand, the
acts constituting Gross Insubordination in the earlier case relates to Martin's
refusal to comply with the orders of the Court as shown in the Returns of
Service dated .May 12, 2014, September 2, 2015, December 1, 2015, May 3,
2016, September 8, 2016, and April 5, 2017. 32 While this case mentions the
same Return of Service dated May 12, 2014, the act constituting Gross
Insubordination nevertheless referred not to her failure to receive the
Memorandum referred to in the said return but to Martin's defiance of Judge
Gandia-Asuncion's order for her to enter her chambers and discuss the verbal
report of OIC-COC Pedroche on the improper entries in the logbook for May
6, 2014. 33

In light of the forego ing, the Court imposes upon Martin two separate
penalties. For the serious offenses of gross misconduct and serious dishonesty
which arose from a single act, in view of the earlier imposition of the penalty
of dismissal with its accessory penalties, the Court orders Martin to pay a fine
of PHP 200,000.00 in accordance with paragraph (b), Section 18 34 ofRule 140.
For Gross Insubordination which arose from a different act, the Comi irnposes
upon Martin the penalty of Fine of PHP 110,000.00. 35

ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds Lmna M. Maiiin, Court

Stenographer I of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Sta. Ignacia-Mayantoc-
San Clemente-San Jose, Tarlac, GUILTY of Serious Dishonesty and Gross
.Misconduct, for which she is ordered to pay a FINE of PHP 200,000.00. Martin
is also found GUILTY of Gross Insubordination and is meted out the penalty
of FINE of PHP 110,000.00.
JI Id
32 Id
33 Rollo, p. 3. Letter dated June 4, 2014 of Judge Gandi,1-Asunc ion to the OCA.
34 SECTION 18 . Penalty in lieu of Dis1,;issal un Account ofSupervening Resignation, Retirement, or other
Modes of Separation of Sen1ice. - l f the respondent is found liable for an offense w hich merits the
imposition the penalty of dismissa l from serv ice but the same can no longer be imposed due to the
respondent 's supervening resignation , rerirement, or other modes of se paration fro m service except fo r
death , he or she may be meted with the folbwing pena lties in !ieu of disrnissai:
(a) Forfeiture of a ll or part of ihe bt~1,dits as lhc Supreme Court may determine, and disqualification
from reinstatement or app0intmc:;1t tc ::n)' public of1ice, including government-owned or -controlled
corporations. Provided, howevt!r. t:;at the forfeillire of benefits shal! in no case include accrued leave
credits; and/or
(b) Fine as stated in Section 17(! )(c J cf this Ruic.
35 See Presiding .Judge Alano v. Delicurw i\.M. Ne,. p..}Q-4050 [Fon1eriy OCA !Pl No. 16-4600-P], June
14, 2022 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
Decision A.M. No . 15-05-50-MCTC

SO ORDERED.

"'
A NS. CAGUIOA
tice

--=::: - ~
HEN SAMUEL H. GAERLAN
Associate Justice

1A
1
H
Associate Justice / Associate Justice
/

,,//