A.M. No. P-11-2999; February 27, 2012
Sheila G. Del Rosario, Complainant, vs. Mary Anne C. Pascua, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Sheila G. del Rosario, a Court Stenographer III, charged her co-worker, respondent Mary Anne C. Pascua, also a Court Stenographer III of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Santiago City, Isabela, with Dishonesty. The first charge alleged that respondent traveled to Hong Kong from June 1 to 6, 2008, without securing the required travel authority from the Supreme Court and failed to state this foreign travel in her leave application. The second charge alleged that respondent misrepresented her date of birth as June 27, 1974, in her official documents, whereas her National Statistics Office (NSO) certificate indicated August 7, 1974.
In her comment, respondent admitted failing to secure a travel authority but claimed this was due to inadvertence. Regarding her date of birth, she asserted that June 27, 1974, was her true date of birth as shown by her baptismal certificate and marriage contract, and she was in the process of correcting the NSO record. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent guilty of violating office rules for the unauthorized travel and simple dishonesty for the nondisclosure in her leave form, recommending a reprimand and a one-month suspension, respectively. The OCA found no dishonesty concerning the birthdate discrepancy.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is administratively liable for her failure to secure a travel authority and to disclose her foreign travel in her leave application, and for the discrepancy in her recorded date of birth.

RULING

The Court adopted the OCA’s findings but modified the penalties. The Court found respondent guilty of two separate violations of reasonable office rules and regulations. First, she violated OCA Circular No. 49-2003, which mandates court personnel to secure travel authority from the Office of the Court Administrator for foreign travel. Second, she violated Section 67 of the Omnibus Rules on Leave by failing to state her foreign travel in her leave application, an omission the Court found strongly suggestive of deception amounting to dishonesty. These were treated as twin infractions.
Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, violation of reasonable office rules is a light offense. However, given the deceptive nature of the second violation concerning the leave application, the Court imposed a heavier penalty. Respondent was suspended for three months without pay for these twin violations, with a warning for future offenses.
Regarding the birthdate discrepancy, the Court found no dishonesty. Dishonesty requires a concealment of truth relevant to one’s office or duties. The respondent’s date of birth was not a fact material to her qualifications or functions. Her claim that June 27, 1974, was her true date of birth, supported by other documents, and her ongoing effort to correct the NSO record negated any deliberate intent to deceive. Thus, this charge was dismissed.