A.M. No. P-06-2264, September 29, 2009
Atty. Lelu P. Contreras vs. Teresita O. Monge, Clerk IV, RTC-Office of the Clerk of Court, Iriga City

FACTS

This administrative case stemmed from two complaints filed by then Clerk of Court Atty. Lelu P. Contreras against respondent Teresita Monge, a Clerk IV in the same office. The first complaint charged Monge with neglect of duty and discourtesy for allegedly failing to maintain orderly utility bill files, not informing the complainant of a water disconnection notice, omitting two cases from raffle, and not submitting a required attendance report for flag ceremonies. The second complaint accused her of insubordination and grave misconduct for purportedly tampering with her bundy card, failing to log in and out of the attendance logbook, being absent without official leave (AWOL), and leaving the office without permission after recording her attendance.
In her comment, respondent did not substantively refute the charges but highlighted a pre-existing grudge between her and the complainant, referencing a prior administrative case (A.M. No. P-05-2040). The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the matter for investigation. The investigating judge found that the ill feelings from the prior case influenced the present complaints. The judge concluded that Monge was guilty of neglect of duty under the first complaint and, for the second complaint, only of failing to log in and out of the attendance logbook, which constituted a violation of office rules. The charge of AWOL was not substantiated.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Teresita O. Monge is administratively liable for the acts complained of, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court adopted the factual findings of the investigation but modified the recommended penalty. The Court found Monge guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty for the first complaint. Simple neglect is the failure to give due attention to a task, signifying carelessness or indifference. Her failures in filing bills, submitting reports, and preparing raffle lists constituted such neglect, which is a less grave offense. For the second complaint, the Court affirmed she was guilty of Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations for not logging in and out, a light offense.
Critically, the Court noted this was Monge’s second offense for violating office rules, as she had been previously reprimanded in A.M. No. P-05-2040. Applying Section 55 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, which mandates that the penalty for the most serious offense be imposed when an employee is guilty of multiple charges, the Court imposed the penalty for the more serious offense of Simple Neglect of Duty. Furthermore, her prior offense was considered an aggravating circumstance. The Court emphasized that court personnel must perform their duties with utmost diligence and professionalism, as any neglect diminishes public confidence in the judiciary. Respondent’s tendency to blame others for her own omissions was deemed reprehensible.