The Supreme Court ruled that falsifying a medical certificate to cover up unauthorized absences constitutes dishonesty, a grave offense meriting dismissal from government service. This decision underscores the high standard of integrity required of public servants and reinforces the principle that falsification undermines the public trust, leading to severe consequences for those who engage in such misconduct. The Court emphasized that even attempts to conceal attendance issues through falsified documents could lead to dismissal, highlighting the importance of honesty and transparency in government employment. Ultimately, the ruling aims to ensure accountability and maintain the integrity of public service.

When a Medical Certificate Becomes a Ticket to Termination

This case revolves around Isabel D. Marquez, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Caba, La Union, filing an administrative complaint against Jocelyn C. Fernandez, a stenographer in the same court, for frequent unauthorized absences, tardiness, and falsification of public documents. Marquez presented evidence showing discrepancies in Fernandez’s daily time records (DTRs) and a medical certificate submitted by Fernandez. The central legal question is whether Fernandez’s actions constitute dishonesty and habitual absenteeism, warranting disciplinary action.

The complaint alleged that Fernandez had incurred frequent tardiness and undertimes from September to November 2004, which she explained were due to health problems arising from a fractured arm. Marquez found this explanation unsatisfactory, claiming that Fernandez was often seen roaming the court’s premises and the municipal hall during her supposed sick leaves. Moreover, Marquez pointed out that Fernandez had taken unauthorized absences without prior notice, indicating vacation leave in her DTRs without following the required procedures. The most critical piece of evidence was a medical certificate from the Ilocos Training and Regional Medical Center. While Fernandez claimed the certificate covered multiple days of treatment, verification with the hospital revealed that she was only treated on November 5, 2004. This discrepancy led to the charge of falsification of a public document.

In her defense, Fernandez admitted that she had altered the medical certificate. She explained that Marquez had insisted the certificate reflect the entire healing period, and a nurse at the medical center suggested she type in the additional dates. However, she claimed she forgot to have the nurse sign the amended certificate before submitting it. Marquez refuted this, highlighting the inconsistencies between the original and altered documents and arguing that Fernandez’s claim of constant pain was a pretext to justify her absences. Judge Molina-Alim, who investigated the case, found Fernandez liable for absenteeism, tardiness, and falsification of a public document, recommending her dismissal from service.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concurred with the finding of liability but recommended a one-year suspension without pay, citing Fernandez’s medical problems and admission of guilt as mitigating factors. However, the Supreme Court ultimately adopted the OCA’s evaluation, except for the recommended sanction. The Court emphasized the stringent standards of conduct demanded from those in the administration of justice, quoting Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, which defines habitual tardiness:

Any employee shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness, regardless of the member of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least two consecutive months during the year.

Moreover, the Court referenced Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991, defining habitual absenteeism:

An officer or employee in the civil service shall be considered habitually absent if he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credits under the leave law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive months during the year.

The Court found that Fernandez’s actions violated these rules, stating that “moral obligation, performance of household chores, traffic problems, health conditions, domestic and financial concerns are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.” The decision emphasized that public office is a public trust, and those in the judiciary must be role models of faithful observance of this principle.

The Court considered the falsified medical certificate as a crucial factor in its decision. While it acknowledged the lack of definitive proof that Fernandez personally made the alterations, it emphasized that she carried the burden of proving she did not commit the offense once the falsified document was submitted. The Court stated that it could not ignore the gross dishonesty involved in submitting a falsified document to cover up unauthorized absences. Referring to Office of the Court Administrator v. Bermejo, the Court reiterated that dishonesty “is a serious offense which reflects a person’s character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys his honor, virtue and integrity.”

Under Civil Service Rules, dishonesty is classified as a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense. Therefore, the Court ruled that the penalty imposable for habitual tardiness and absenteeism was subsumed by the penalty of dismissal due to the dishonesty involved. Consequently, the Supreme Court found Fernandez guilty of habitual tardiness, absenteeism, and dishonesty, ordering her dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits, except earned leaves.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Jocelyn C. Fernandez’s habitual tardiness, absenteeism, and falsification of a medical certificate constituted grave offenses warranting dismissal from public service.
What did the medical certificate falsification involve?	Fernandez submitted a medical certificate to cover her absences, but the certificate had been altered to include dates she was not actually treated at the hospital, leading to the charge of falsification.
What are the penalties for dishonesty in the civil service?	Under Civil Service Rules, dishonesty is classified as a grave offense, punishable by dismissal from service, even for the first offense.
What constitutes habitual tardiness according to Civil Service rules?	Habitual tardiness is defined as incurring tardiness ten or more times a month for at least two consecutive months during the year, regardless of the number of minutes.
What constitutes habitual absenteeism according to Civil Service rules?	Habitual absenteeism is defined as incurring unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credits for at least three months in a semester or three consecutive months during the year.
What was the Supreme Court’s final decision?	The Supreme Court found Fernandez guilty of habitual tardiness, absenteeism, and dishonesty, and ordered her dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits, except earned leaves.
Why was the initial recommendation of suspension not followed?	The Supreme Court did not follow the suspension recommendation due to the gravity of the dishonesty involved in submitting a falsified document, which warranted the stricter penalty of dismissal.
What is the significance of this ruling for public servants?	This ruling emphasizes the high standard of integrity and honesty required of public servants and the severe consequences of falsifying documents or engaging in dishonest acts.

This case serves as a stern reminder to all public servants about the importance of honesty, integrity, and adherence to civil service rules. The falsification of documents, no matter how minor it may seem, can lead to severe consequences, including dismissal from service. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust, and any breach of that trust will be met with appropriate disciplinary action.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ISABEL D. MARQUEZ v. JOCELYN C. FERNANDEZ, AM No. P-07-2358, October 19, 2010