Republic of the Philippines

PHILIPPINE POSTAL CORPORATION_________________________________

OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL
PHILIPPINE POSTAL CORPORATION
Complainant, P
PC Adm. Case No. A3-15-2139
-versus- For: Grave Misconduct, Violation of
Existing Postal Rules and
MS. EVELYN R. MERCADO, Regulations of Serious Nature
Postal Teller III and Conduct Grossly Prejudicial
San Fernando City Post Office to the Best Interest of the Service.
San Fernando City, Pampanga
Respondent.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

Postal Teller III EVELYN R. MERCADO of San Fernando City Post Office, San
Fernando City, stands administratively charged of Gross Misconduct Neglect of Duty,
Violation of Reasonable Rules and Regulations of Serious Nature and Conduct Grossly
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The facts of the case are summarized in a
Formal Charge dated 22 April 2015, as follows:

“That you are formerly assigned at the Gloria Centrum Extension Post Office,
San Fernando City, Pampanga, as in-charge of receiving letters and packages
for mailing from senders and recording of registered mails for dispatch; that
on November 26, 2014, you accepted two (2) letters for mailing from Viray
Rongcal Beltran Yumol & Viray Law Office, one is addressed to the National
Capital Judicial Region, RTC, Branch 42, Manila and the other one is
addressed to Lapuz & Associates Law Office, Unit 1902-A East Tower,
Philippine Stock Exchange Center, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig
City; that you registered these mails under Registered Nos. 02004 and 02005,
respectively; that the mailer from Viray Rongcal Beltran Yumol & Viray Law
Office requested you to antedate the date of mailing of these registered mails
which is November 26, 2014 to November 21, 2014; that you acceded to the
request by stamping the date “November 21, 2014” to Registry Receipt No.
02005 while stamping “Registered November 26, 2014” on the mail envelope
with Registered No. 02004 addressed to the National Capital Judicial Region,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, Manila; that further, you admitted that you
are making reservations of registry receipts for clients requesting for
antedating of the posting of their mails; that your deliberate acts of
altering/antedating the true date of posting of letters containing court pleadings
are inimical in the administration of justice which constitute Grave
Misconduct, Violation of Existing Postal Rules and Regulation of Serious
Nature and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.”

Required to submit her answer within five (5) days from receipt of the copy of the
formal charge, Respondent submitted her Answer dated 18 May 2015 praying for the

3rd Floor, MCPO Bldg., Liwasang Bonifacio, 1000 Manila.  (02) 527-8327
dismissal of the administrative case against her sans her option whether she elects or waive
her right to a formal hearing.

In an Order dated 03 June 2015 Respondent was given a non-extendible period of five
(5) days to inform her option to elect or waive her right to a formal hearing. Respondent
through a manifestation dated 27 July 2015 opted for a formal hearing of this case.

Pre-hearing of this case was set and terminated on 22 October 2015.

On 25 November 2015 Respondent respectively submitted a motion to transfer venue

from Manila Central Post Office to Regional Office, San Fernando City, Pampanga with
urgent motion to cancel hearing to minimize the cost of attending and defending herself.

While the case was pending for the continuation of hearing, Respondent submitted
her position paper dated 06 June 2016 praying for the outright dismissal of this case hence, in
an order dated 20 February 2017 Respondent was given a period of 15 days to clarify her
intention whether she opt for the continuation of the formal hearing or submit this case for
resolution based on her submitted position paper and/or submit additional
documents/evidence.

Respondent averred in her Position Paper that before being assigned in the City of
San Fernando she was detailed in Gloria Centrum Extension Post Office, where she was all
alone doing all the task of said postal office or a one man post office, her tasks includes
receiving, recording and dispatching of letters and packages. That on 21 November 2014 two
letters for mailing from Viray Rongcal Beltran & Viray Law Offic e was received by
Respondent. The said letters were respectively addressed to the Regional Trial Court Branch
42, Manila and Lapuz & Associates Law Office, Phil. Stock Exchange Center, Pasig City
with Registry Return Receipt No. 02004 and 02005. That it was only on 26 November 2014
when the said letters were dispatched, and Respondent Mercado have mistakenly stamp
marked in front of the letter the date 26 November 2014, the cancelled stamps were
mistakenly stamped of the same date as well. That the mistake was not intentional but a mere
oversight and inadvertence due to heavy work load. That during the investigation conducted
by the Inspectorate Department of Philippine Postal Corporation, Respondent submitted her
first sinumpaang salaysay asserting that the stamp marked made in front of the subject letters
were made by mistake or inadvertence. However, while the investigation was ongoing
Respondent alleged that she was enticed and maliciously convinced if not ill-advised,
through fraud, deceit, threat and intimidation, to recant her previous sinumpaang salaysay
and execute an extra-judicial confession without assistance of a counsel. In Respondent’s
second sinumpaang salaysay, she admitted that the letters was indeed received by her on 26
November 2014, and that she agreed with the letter sender to alter the date of receipt to an
earlier date of 21 November 2014. Respondent Mercado prayed for the outright dismissal of
the case for lack of factual or legal basis.

In a letter dated 07 April 2017 Respondent attached an affidavit of a certain Fe M.

2

3rd Floor, MCPO Bldg., Liwasang Bonifacio, 1000 Manila.  (02) 527-8327
Sangil, alleged secretary of Viray Rongcal Beltran Yumol & Viray Law Office with address
at 3rd Floor, St. Anthony Bldg.,B. Mendoza St., San Fernando, Pampanga claiming to be the
mailer of the two (2) registered mail under the registry receipt No. 02004 and 02005 intended
for the Regional Trial Court Branch 42, Manila and Lapuz and Associates Law Office, Unit
1902-A East Tower, Phil. Stock Exchange Center, Pasig City and requested/prayed for the
termination of the hearing and resolution of this case.

In the present case, both copies of the sinumpaang salaysay were examined and both
showed to have been made without the presence of Respondent’s lawyer; thus, the allegation
as to the absence of Respondent’s lawyer when the second sinumpaang salaysay was
executed deserves scant consideration because her first sinumpaang salaysay was also
executed without her lawyer. The allegations of Respondent in her second sinumpaang
salaysay as to the presence of force, intimidation, fraud or deceit in which she was enticed to
recant her previous sinumpaang salaysay shall not be considered for the absence of any
evidence to support the same. Both has been subscribed and sworn before investigators-in-
charge of the case, thus, both sinumpaang salaysay enjoys the presumption to have been
executed on regular performance of official duty1.

The rule is settled that in cases where previous testimony is retracted and a subsequent
different, if not contrary, testimony is made by the same witness, the test to decide which
testimony to believe is one of comparison coupled with the application of the general rules of
evidence2.

Rule 130 Section 44 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that, entries in the official
records made in the performance of his duty by a public officer of the Philippines, or
by a person in the performance of a duty specially enjoined by law, are prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated.

Upon examination, the registry bill record of Respondent showed that the disputed
registered mails were indeed mailed on 21 November 2014, however four registry return
receipt with numbers 02000, 02001, 02002 and 02003 which precedes the disputed registered
mail were cancelled with no stated reason. Further, registered mail with receipt number
02009 which appeared to have been mailed on the same date as the disputed registered mails
with receipt numbers 02004 and 02005 on 21 November 2014 was recorded bill on 21
November 2014 and dispatched on 24 November 2014, while other mails with registry return
receipt 01099 and 02006 including the disputed mails 02004 and 02005 were only recorded
on 25 November 2014 and dispatched on 26 November 2014 or the following day. Records
also shows that other registered mail with receipt numbers 0147, 0148, 0149, 0150, 0151,
0153, 0154, 0155 and 0156 were also cancelled with no stated reason. The system of
recording applied by Respondent as appearing on the records, including the bulk of cancelled
registry return receipt with no reason stated, would lead a reasonable person to conclude lack
of due diligence on the part of Respondent in the performance of her duty.

1
Rule 131 Section 3 (m), Rules of Court
2
People of the Philippines v. P/Supt. Artemio Lamsen, et al., GR No. 198338, November 13, 2013
3

3rd Floor, MCPO Bldg., Liwasang Bonifacio, 1000 Manila.  (02) 527-8327
 In administrative cases, it is sufficient that “there is reasonable ground to believe that
petitioner (Respondent in this case) is guilty of the act or omission complained of even if the
evidence might not be overwhelming” (Orbase v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 175115, December
23, 2009, 609 SCRA 111, 126).

Considering all the evidence submitted and records of the case at hand, Respondent is
found guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and Violation of Postal Rules and Regulations of
Serious Nature under the Revised Administrative Cases in the Civil Service in relation with
the Revised Disciplinary Rules and Procedures of the Philippine Postal Corporation.

Section 616 of the Philippine Postal Manual elucidates the importance or urgent
nature of registered mail pertaining to court litigations, especially those sent by the courts,
and such registered mail must be accorded the most appropriate and expeditious treatment
including their notices and return receipts. It further states that any delay or improper
disposition will not only amount to an administrative offense but may also constitute
contempt of court or any other offense punishable by law.

Given such delicate and sensitive nature of registered mail, Respondent is bound by
law to perform her duties with utmost diligence.

For failure to strictly observe her mandated duties, Respondent is guilty of Simple
Neglect of Duty which signifies the “failure of an employee to give attention to a task
expected of him and a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference”
(Rodrigo-Ebron vs. Adolfo, 522 SCRA 286, 294; Reyes vs. Pablico, 508 SCRA 146, 155).

Respondent cannot be held guilty of Grave Misconduct which is the offense originally
charged. As held by the Supreme Court, "misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance
warranting removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to and be connected
with the performance of official duties amounting either to mal-administration or willful,
intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office."3. In the present case, the
element of willful intent is absent.

The failure of Respondent to stamp marked the registered mails of the exact date
when it was mailed which caused confusion to the court to which it was addressed, as well as
the late dispatching of such disputed registered mails and the bulk cancellation of registry
return receipts without any valid reason stated is sufficient for a reasonable mind to conclude
that Respondent is guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and Violation of Postal Rules and
Regulations of Serious Nature.

Under the prevailing rules, Simple Neglect of Duty and Violation of Existing Postal
Rules and Regulations of Serious Nature are classified as a less grave offense which carries
the penalty one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months pursuant to Section 50 (D), Rule
10 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS) and
Section 55(E), Rule 10 of the Revised Disciplinary Rules and Procedures of the Philippine
Postal Corporation.

3
Amosco vs Magro, 73 SCRA 107
4

3rd Floor, MCPO Bldg., Liwasang Bonifacio, 1000 Manila.  (02) 527-8327
 Further, the rules also states that in case of retirement from government service
where suspension becomes moot the penalty of fine in lieu of suspension shall be imposed in
which the ratio of one (1) day suspension from service to one (1) day salary fine shall be
applied pursuant to Section 52 (2) Rule 10 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service (2017 RACCS) and Section 56 (2), Rules 11 of the Revised Disciplinary Rules
and Procedures of the Philippine Postal Corporation. Appreciating in her favor the
mitigating circumstance of first offense and length of service spanning 39 years, the
minimum penalty of fine equal to her one (1) month and one (1) day salary is in order.

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, Respondent EVELYN R.

MERCADO is found GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty and Violation of Existing Postal
Rules and Regulations of Serious Nature. Appreciating in her favor the mitigating
circumstances of first offense and length of service for 39 years, she is hereby meted the
penalty of FINE of her ONE (1) MONTH and ONE (1) DAY salary.

SO DECIDED.
Manila, Philippines,

JOEL L. OTARRA
Postmaster General & CEO

3rd Floor, MCPO Bldg., Liwasang Bonifacio, 1000 Manila.  (02) 527-8327