In the case of Concerned Employees of the Municipal Trial Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan vs. Larizza Paguio-Bacani, the Supreme Court addressed the administrative liability of a court employee found to have falsified her attendance records and traveled abroad without securing the necessary travel authority. The Court ruled that such actions constitute dishonesty and a violation of reasonable office rules, thereby undermining the integrity of the judiciary. This decision reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust, demanding accountability, integrity, and adherence to established regulations from all public servants, especially those within the judicial system.

Navigating the Boundaries: When Duty Calls Abroad, Does Honesty Stay Behind?

This case began with an anonymous letter from concerned employees of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Meycauayan, Bulacan, alleging that Branch Clerk of Court II, Larizza Paguio-Bacani, falsified her attendance and/or leave records. The employees also raised doubts about whether she had complied with travel requirements for her trips abroad. Specifically, the complaint included a Travel Information document issued by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) showing that Larizza Paguio had traveled abroad on multiple dates.

In response to these allegations, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated the matter. It found discrepancies in Paguio-Bacani’s attendance records and confirmed that she had indeed traveled abroad on several occasions without obtaining the necessary travel authority from the Supreme Court. Paguio-Bacani admitted to the travels, but tried to explain away her failure to secure authorization by citing urgent family matters and ignorance.

The OCA found her explanations unconvincing, noting that Paguio-Bacani had violated established Supreme Court rules and regulations regarding foreign travel for court personnel. Under OCA Circular No. 49-2003, in relation to A.M. No. 99-12-08-SC, “all foreign travels of judges and court personnel regardless of the number of days, must be with prior permission from the Supreme Court through the Chief Justice and the Chairmen of the Divisions.”. The OCA recommended disciplinary action. The court’s own investigation highlighted the severity of the situation.

Further complicating matters was the allegation of falsification of daily time records. Complainants claimed that Paguio-Bacani’s staff would sign her attendance logbook when she was absent, creating a false impression that she was present for work. While direct evidence of this practice was lacking, investigators uncovered inconsistencies between Paguio-Bacani’s official attendance records and those maintained by the Leave Division of the OCA. The Leave Division’s records contradicted the official record, triggering the court to seek further validation. In such a situation, the court gave more importance to Leave Division records. The burden shifted to Paguio-Bacani to prove otherwise but failed to provide an adequate defense.

The Supreme Court emphasized that public office is a public trust. Public servants must be accountable to the people, and must serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. Government employees should be examples of integrity and proper behavior. Any conduct that undermines public confidence in the judiciary cannot be tolerated. In the instant case, the employee violated many circulars including, but not limited to, Section 67 of the Omnibus Rules on Leave which states:

SEC. 67. Any violation of the leave laws, rules or regulations, or any misrepresentation or deception in connection with an application for leave shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

Given the gravity of the offenses and the need to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, the Supreme Court found Larizza Paguio-Bacani guilty of dishonesty through falsification of her Daily Time Records and for leaving the country without the proper travel authority. She was thusly SUSPENDED from the service for one (1) year without pay, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

The Supreme Court referenced previous cases regarding employees falsifying DTRs wherein employees were ordered to pay a fine ranging from P2,000.00 to P5,000.00, or sentenced them to a suspension ranging from three (3) to six (6) months. The Court weighed such precedents and made its judgment based on past rulings and facts presented.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a court employee could be held administratively liable for falsifying her attendance records and traveling abroad without the required travel authority.
What is a travel authority?	A travel authority is an official document issued by the Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, granting permission for judges and court personnel to travel abroad. This requirement ensures accountability and oversight of court employees’ activities.
What constitutes dishonesty in this context?	Dishonesty, in this context, refers to the act of falsifying official documents, such as attendance records or leave applications, to deceive the court or the government. Such acts violate the trust placed in public officials and undermine the integrity of public service.
What are the consequences of falsifying official records?	Falsifying official records can lead to severe administrative penalties, including suspension, fines, or even dismissal from public service. Criminal charges may also be filed, depending on the nature and severity of the falsification.
Why is it important for court employees to be honest and transparent?	Court employees hold a position of public trust, and their honesty and transparency are essential to maintaining the integrity and credibility of the judiciary. Any act of dishonesty or misrepresentation erodes public confidence in the justice system.
What is the significance of OCA Circular No. 49-2003?	OCA Circular No. 49-2003 mandates that all foreign travels of judges and court personnel, regardless of duration, require prior permission from the Supreme Court. This circular ensures that court employees’ foreign travels are properly authorized and do not interfere with their official duties.
Is this the respondent’s first offense?	Yes, the court took the fact that it was the employee’s first administrative offense into consideration. It ultimately led to a more lenient sentence.
Was there any mitigating circumstances?	Yes, the court considered this a mitigating circumstance in delivering the employee’s one-year suspension. This type of consideration usually depends on the specifics of the situation.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a reminder to all public servants, especially those in the judiciary, of the importance of upholding ethical standards and adhering to established rules and regulations. Falsification and unauthorized foreign travel not only undermine the integrity of the public service, but also erode public confidence in the justice system. To maintain a respectable standing in your place of work it is important to adhere to guidelines.

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: CONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. LARIZZA PAGUIO-BACANI, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, RESPONDENT., 49508, July 30, 2009