Court Stenographer Dismissed for Habitual Absences, Tardiness, and Dishonesty

The Supreme Court has ruled that court employees who habitually report late, incur unauthorized absences, and submit falsified documents to cover their misconduct forfeit their right to remain in the judiciary. In Marquez v. Fernandez (A.M. No. P-07-2358, October 19, 2010), the Court dismissed a court stenographer for these grave offenses, underscoring the stringent standard of conduct demanded of everyone connected with the administration of justice.

The Case Against the Stenographer

The complainant, the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Caba, La Union, filed an administrative complaint against Jocelyn C. Fernandez, a court stenographer of the same court. The complaint alleged that Fernandez incurred frequent unauthorized absences and tardiness from September to November 2004, and that she falsified a medical certificate to justify her absences.

The clerk of court noted that Fernandez's daily time records showed tardiness or undertime almost every day. Despite memoranda asking her to explain, Fernandez cited health problems from a fractured arm. The clerk of court found this explanation unsatisfactory, observing that Fernandez appeared healthy and was often seen roaming the court premises and the municipal hall.

The Falsified Medical Certificate

In November 2004, Fernandez submitted a medical certificate stating she was treated at a regional medical center on several specific dates and needed medical attention for 20 days. However, verification with the hospital revealed that Fernandez was examined and treated only on November 5, 2004. The original certificate had been altered to include additional dates that were not in the hospital-issued document.

Fernandez admitted the alteration but claimed a nurse at the hospital told her to type in the additional dates. The Court rejected this as a "lame excuse," noting that the inserted entry appeared in a smaller font than the original typed entries. The Court held that upon proof of submitting a falsified document, Fernandez carried the burden of proving she did not commit the serious offense of dishonesty—a burden she failed to discharge.

The Court's Ruling

The Court found Fernandez guilty of habitual tardiness, absenteeism, and dishonesty. Under Civil Service rules, an employee is habitually tardy if tardiness is incurred ten times a month for at least two consecutive months. An employee is habitually absent if unauthorized absences exceed the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credits for at least three months in a semester or three consecutive months.

In a span of six months, Fernandez incurred ninety-three and a half days of absences—almost 50% of the time. The Court noted that health conditions, while regrettable, do not excuse habitual tardiness. More importantly, Fernandez's submission of a falsified medical certificate constituted dishonesty, a grave offense punishable by dismissal even for the first offense.

The Court emphasized that dishonesty "reflects a person's character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys his honor, virtue and integrity." Due to her dishonest act, Fernandez was deemed unfit to remain in the judiciary.

Why This Matters

This case reinforces that public office is a public trust, and those working in the judiciary must be role models in faithfully observing this constitutional canon. Court personnel are held to a higher standard because the administration of justice depends on their integrity and reliability. The Court will not tolerate employees who abuse their positions, falsify documents, or treat their duties lightly—even when they have personal difficulties.

Practical Takeaways

• Court employees face strict attendance rules. Habitual tardiness (ten times a month for two consecutive months) and habitual absenteeism (exceeding 2.5 days monthly leave credits for three months) are administrative offenses.
• Health problems are not a blanket excuse. While medical conditions may explain occasional absences, employees must still follow proper leave procedures and notify their office of absences.
• Falsifying documents is a grave offense. Submitting an altered medical certificate or any falsified document constitutes dishonesty, which warrants dismissal even for the first offense.
• The burden shifts to the employee. When a submitted document is shown to be falsified, the employee must prove they did not commit the falsification; failing to do so results in liability.
• The judiciary demands the highest integrity. Court personnel who engage in dishonest conduct forfeit their positions and benefits, except earned leaves.

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