Court Stenographer Dismissed for Falsifying DTRs and Pocketing Colleague's Salary

The Supreme Court has long held that those who work in the judiciary must meet the highest standards of honesty and integrity. A 2002 administrative case shows just how seriously the Court treats betrayal of that trust: a court stenographer who falsified daily time records and forged documents to pocket a colleague's salary for nearly two years was dismissed from service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from government re-employment.

The Case: A Friend's Betrayal

Complainant Teresita Romero, a court interpreter, went on official leave from September 1991 to April 1993. Before leaving, she prepared her daily time records (DTRs) and leave applications and asked her close friend, respondent Enriqueta Castellano, a court stenographer, to submit them to the Supreme Court as each month ended.

When Romero returned to duty in April 1993, she discovered something alarming. Records showed she had never been on leave at all—her salaries for the entire period had been released. She also received pay slips for months she was supposed to be on leave without pay.

Investigation revealed the scheme. Castellano had falsified a different set of DTRs making it appear Romero reported for duty. She then forged Special Powers of Attorney purportedly signed by Romero, designating a mutual friend as attorney-in-fact to collect Romero's salary checks. Through this arrangement, Castellano received Romero's salaries, bonuses, and other benefits from July 1992 to April 1993 and converted them for her own use.

When confronted, Castellano could only cry. She later admitted all the acts in a letter to the Clerk of Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether Castellano's acts constituted grave offenses warranting dismissal from the judiciary, despite her having been previously dropped from service for absence without official leave.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Castellano guilty of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct. Both are grave offenses punishable by dismissal on the first offense under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Executive Order No. 292, as cited in the decision.

The Court emphasized that being dropped from service for AWOL is non-disciplinary and does not erase the need to determine culpability for grave offenses. Dismissal carries serious consequences: cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from re-employment in government.

The Court anchored its ruling on the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust, and that all public officers and employees must serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. It stressed that all court personnel must uphold honesty and integrity, and that Castellano's betrayal of a friend's trust demonstrated a "serious character flaw" making her unfit for judicial service.

Notably, the Court also severely reprimanded the complainant for carelessness in tracking her own leave applications and for tolerating the continued accreditation of leave credits she did not earn—a violation of Civil Service rules on light offenses.

Practical Takeaways

• Falsifying official documents like DTRs or leave applications is gross dishonesty, a grave offense with automatic dismissal on first offense.
• Dismissal for grave offenses carries lasting consequences: forfeiture of retirement benefits and permanent disqualification from government re-employment.
• Being dropped from service for AWOL does not shield an employee from administrative liability for prior misconduct.
• Employees must monitor their own leave filings and official records; carelessness can result in administrative liability even for the victim of fraud.
• Public office is a public trust—this principle applies to every judiciary employee, regardless of rank.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.