Opinion

Water rationing?
There seems to be no emergency mea-sure than can reverse overnight the dry-spell effects of El Niño. Experts have said a decade ago that the state of rainforests and tree cover of our planet can be systematically replenished in fifty years. It is, thus, a long way to go. The drying of agricultural lands and the losses in production signify that the hot season is getting stronger. With the rivers drying
Editorial
up and the rainforests losing their grip, the reality of water rationing is becoming more imminent.
Water rationing can be more beneficial if we apply the principle of maximum utilization and rational distribution. Under his principle, developed by P. R. Sarkar, earth’s resources should be put to maximum use to benefit most of the people and distributed in such a way that those who receive extra are those individuals, groups and establishments that work for the welfare of the majority. Also, under this theory, it will be a sin to accumulate excessive resources for the benefit of a single individual or of only a few.
The idea of water rationing suggested by our local government is an idea that is good to hear. But before we implement it, perhaps we need to assess who need water the most, which activities need water that benefits most of the people, and how we can rationalize the distribution of water so that all don’t go thirsty and can go to work the next day without suffering health problems.
Among the establishments that need water most are hospitals, health centers, doctors’ clinics, food shops, schools, residences, and inns. Communities that share their water resources will know better how to distribute water. Those who save used water for other home purposes such as washing of cars and watering of plants can use their water to the maximum. On the other hand, those who use water to the excess, as in extended bathing and laundry washing, should be advised to earn how to use water to the maximum.
While we are thinking of water rationing, the long shot would be to continue planting trees and protecting our watersheds and rainforests. Our communities and government should also check and control the production of carbons that destroy our ozone layer and create the green house effect that contribute the dry spells. Thinking only of water rationing and not seeing the bigger picture will be, ultimately, disastrous.

The SC on deception

by government employees

This administrative case originated from an anonymous letter questioning the status of Jenny (respondent), a government employee enrolled as a regular nursing student. The undisputed facts from the records are as follows:

Jenny was clerk III in a municipal trial court in cities (MTCC) of Davao City in August 2000. In June 2002, she took up nursing at Brokenshire College until March 2004. She later transferred to North Valley College where she finished her course.

In December 2003, an anonymous letter was sent to then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., stating that the respondent was a regular employee but concurrently enrolled as a nursing student in Brokenshire College.

On January 20, 2004, the Office of the Chief Justice referred said letter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action. The deputy court administrator (DCA) wrote the Dean of Nursing of Brokenshire College, requesting that he be furnished the details of respondent’s enrollment in the school.

The dean confirmed that respondent was enrolled as a third year nursing student, with classes on Mondays from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Tuesdays from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

On 10 March 2004, a spot audit was conducted by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office No. 11 in Davao City. It found that respondent incurred a total of 190 days tardy and 194 absences from January 2002 to February 2004, no leave application was filed.

The absences incurred by the respondent caused a backlog in her work. It was also noted that the daily time records of respondent were duly certified by the branch clerk of court and not by the Presiding Judge. On May 28, 2004, the Office of Administrative Services furnished the OCA with a certification on the absences and tardiness by the respondent.

In response, the branch clerk of court claimed the audit findings of CSC contradicted the records of the MTCC consisting of the daily time records, photocopies of application for leave of absence and photocopies of the daily logbook of attendance which reflected only 82 counts of tardiness.

Jenny also claimed to have sought permission from the OCA to pursue further studies in a letter dated 3 June 2002. However, she did not receive any response from the OCA but admitted she enrolled in a two-year nursing course at Brokenshire College as a regular student.

She contended the audit findings regarding her tardiness and absences were inaccurate and that CSC-Davao had no basis in considering her to be on absence without leave as she religiously complied with the requirements for filing the leave of absence.

On 6 June 2005, this Court referred the case to Executive Judge Renato A. Fuentes, designated executive judge of RTC Davao. Judge Fuentes conducted three separate hearings in which the respondent, the presiding judge and the branch clerk of court appeared.

Judge Fuentes reported the following findings: (1) that respondent, a permanently appointed Clerk III in MTCC-Davao, enrolled in a nursing course in June 2002 without informing the presiding judge or the OCA; (2) that when she so informed the presiding judge and the branch clerk of court, they failed to report this matter to the OCA.

Judge Fuentes recommended that respondent be dismissed from service after finding her guilty of committing acts of deception and violating her duties as a court employee. The presiding judge and the branch clerk of court were also found guilty of gross negligence and recommended that they be suspended and fined respectively, in the amount the SC may consider.

The ruling stated: "It bears stressing that the conduct and behavior of one connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. This Court cannot countenance any act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary." (Second Division - Anonymous, A.M. No. P-07-2404 Dec. 13, 2007)

MARCH 8 - 10, 2010 * MONDAY-WEDNESDAY * Iloilo City, Philippines