Supreme Court axes interpreter who failed to declare her kids

The Supreme Court has dismissed a court interpreter based in Cebu City for dishonesty and falsification of an official document when she failed to declare in her personal data sheet (PDS) that she had three children.

In a 10-page decision dated August 10, the high court ordered the dismissal of Marilyn Avila, court interpreter in a Cebu city municipal trial court, as well as the cancellation of her government eligibility and the forfeiture of her benefits, except for accrued leave credits. She was also barred from ever working for the government again.

High employee standards

“Employment in the judiciary demands the highest level of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency from its personnel… By her acts of dishonesty and falsification of an official document, (Avila) has failed to measure up to the high and exacting standards set for judicial employees, and must, therefore, be dismissed from the service,” said the high court.

Avila’s dismissal stemmed from a complaint filed by her former live-in partner, Manolito Villordon, before the Office of the Court Administrator in October 2008, where he claimed she had falsified information in her PDS, including her nondeclaration of her three children out of wedlock from another relationship.

An investigation by Cebu City MTC Executive Judge Oscar Andrino showed that aside from Avila’s omission of the names of her three daughters in her PDS, she also failed to declare that a complaint of physical injuries had been filed against her by Villordon’s present partner, Marilyn Caballero, after an altercation in January 2009. Avila had also filed a case against Villordon after that incident.

Not under custody

In her defense, Avila said Villordon’s charges came after she ended their relationship when she became a court interpreter. She also claimed she did not declare her children in her PDS because they were not under her custody but were living with her parents. She added that she withheld that information upon the advice of a friend who had pointed out that the birth certificates of her children were not available.

Avila said she did not cause any injury to the government by her action.

On March 2011, the high court received a letter from complainant Villordon, saying he was no longer interested in pursuing his complaint and that he had only filed it out of anger. He also said he had found the recommendation for Avila’s dismissal both “inhuman” and “unjust.”

But the high court agreed with Andrino’s recommendations, noting that Avila’s explanations were “mere excuses that should not be given credence.”

It pointed out that Avila had intended to be dishonest about her children’s existence because she filed her PDS twice that year and failed to name them both times.

“Whatever respondents’ reasons may be, the fact remains that the respondent filled out and signed her PDS fully aware that she had omitted the names of her three children. She was fully aware that the information she supplied was not ‘true, correct and complete,’ and yet she declared under oath that it is,” the court said.