Anonymous vs Jennifer Velarde-Laolao

A.M. No. P-07-2404 – 564 Phil. 620 – 540 SCRA 42 – Legal Ethics – Judicial Ethics – Simple Neglect – Civil Service

Political Law – Administrative Law – Civil Service – Tardiness and Absences

An anonymous letter-complaint was sent by the employees of the Supreme Court based in Davao to then Chief Justice Davide apprising him of the fact that Jennifer Velarde, employed as Clerk III, of MTC Branch 6 in Davao City, while being employed full time was at the same time enrolled full time as a regular nursing student; that her school schedule conflicted with her work schedule so much so that she amassed hundreds of absences and hundreds more of tardiness; that this created backlog; that Judge Antonio Laolao, father in law of Velarde, allowed such to happen.

Velarde in her defense stated that she was able to cope with her work by working overtime on Saturdays and Sundays.

Judge Laolao in his defense stated that he was not aware of the fact that Velarde was taking nursing; that he only knew of the same three months after Velarde enrolled.

ISSUE: Whether or not their respective defenses deserve merit.

HELD: No. Under the Civil Service Law, Velarde cannot offset her absences and tardiness by working overtime. Further, the law specifically states that employees of the government shall render work from Mondays to Fridays from 8am to 5pm except holidays, Saturdays and Sundays. Velarde is then meted with the penalty of 6 months suspension.

Judge Laolao cannot feign ignorance. It was proven by evidence that he actually indorsed a letter to the Office of the Court Administrator about his daughter-in-law’s enrollment even before she started attending her classes. As the presiding judge, Judge Laolao exercises supervision over the conduct and performance of the court personnel, who are primarily employed to aid in the administration of justice. He has the duty to take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which he may have become aware. Clearly, Judge Laolao failed in this regard. Furthermore, being related to respondent by affinity, he should have been more circumspect with respect to the attendance of respondent to avoid any suspicion of bias in Velarde’s favor. Judge Laolao is therefore guilty of simple neglect and he was suspended by the Supreme Court for a period of three months.

Read full text