Allegation of Falsification of the Attendance Record and Daily Time Record Against Ronaldo A. Cruz

THIRD DIVISION

[A.M. No. 11-8-155-RTC. June 9, 2014.]

ALLEGATION OF FALSIFICATION OF THE ATTENDANCE RECORD AND DAILY TIME RECORD AGAINST RONALDO A. CRUZ, CLERK III, RTC-BR. 197, LAS PIÑAS CITY

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 9, 2014, which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. 11-8-155-RTC (Allegation of Falsification of the Attendance Record and Daily Time Record against Ronaldo A. Cruz, Clerk III, RTC-Br. 197, Las Piñas City). — For resolution is the letter-complaint dated October 26, 2010 filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) by Judge Ismael T. Duldulao of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 197, Las Piñas City, charging Ronaldo A. Cruz, Clerk III of the same court, with alleged falsification of his attendance records and daily time records (DTRs).

Following the OCA's recommendation, this Court referred the letter-complaint to Judge Elizabeth Yu Guray, the Executive Judge of the Las Piñas City RTC, for investigation, report, and recommendation. The case was heard on November 28, 2011, attended by the respondent and Atty. Raya Avariza Saber-de Zuñiga, the branch clerk of court of RTC Branch 197, Las Piñas City. During the hearing, both parties agreed to submit their respective position papers within ten (10) days to expedite the proceedings.

In her position paper, Atty. Saber-de Zuñiga averred that sometime in April 2010, while verifying the entries in the DTR against the branch's attendance logbook, she observed that several entries had been altered without her prior approval. In particular, respondent's name in the logbook entries dated March 8, 2010 was originally listed in the 13th row, among those who were either absent or on leave. The entry, however, was erased and rewritten in the 11th row to show that respondent was present on the said date from 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m. It was further averred that respondent likewise tampered the March 15, 2010 entries in the same fashion to make it appear that he was present on that date from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Upon discovery, Atty. Saber-de Zuñiga immediately brought the irregularities to the attention of Judge Duldulao, the presiding judge. She added that this was not respondent's first offense and that she already noticed discrepancies in respondent's attendance logbook and DTR entries for the month of February 2010. But considering that the February incident was respondent's first infraction, he was merely warned that a repetition of the same would be dealt with accordingly.

Acting on the observation, Judge Duldulao instructed Atty. Saber-de Zuñiga to issue respondent a memorandum requiring him to explain within 72 hours from receipt why he should not be charged for tampering the logbook. In his answer, respondent admitted that he changed the entries in the records but only because he was erroneously included in the list of employees who were either absent or on leave even though he was actually present during the said dates. He claimed that his only fault was in not securing the prior approval of his superiors before doing so.

Anent the February incident, respondent countered that the discrepancies were due to the 15-minute grace period the presiding judge granted the employees. Having been allowed to work on a flexi-time schedule, his tour of duty was adjusted to 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Thus, according to respondent, he saw nothing wrong in indicating his time-in as 7:30 a.m. in the DTR despite the fact that he clocked-in at 7:45 in the court attendance logbook. Respondent would later plead these same defenses in his position paper.

Judge Guray, upon evaluation of the case, recommended to the OCA that respondent be suspended for three (3) months without pay for dishonesty and be warned that a repetition of the same offense will be severely dealt with in accordance with law. 1 The investigating judge based the recommendation on the fact that respondent admitted to altering the entries to rectify the records without the prior approval of the branch clerk of court or of the presiding judge. But given respondent's length of service, acknowledgment of the offense and promise not to commit the same, Judge Guray deemed the penalty of dismissal, which is meted for similar cases, to be too severe. Hence, the recommended three-month suspension.

On review, the OCA was not fully convinced of the thoroughness of the investigation conducted. Thus, on August 7, 2013, the case was referred back to the investigating judge for a more comprehensive examination of the factual backdrop of the case. Thereafter, on October 14, 2013, Judge Guray ordered the parties to submit their respective comments within seven (7) days, with which directive only respondent complied. After assessing the additional information supplied by the respondent, Judge Guray submitted a second investigation report dated November 13, 2013, bearing findings and recommendations similar to those in the first.

The Issue

The issue before the Court now is whether or not Ronaldo Cruz can be held administratively liable for dishonesty. acHCSD

The Court's Ruling

The complaint is meritorious.

March 2010 Records

Dishonesty, as a ground for disciplinary action, refers to the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack o integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. 2 Section 52 (A), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies dishonesty as a grave offense 3 that carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in government service even for first time offenders. 4

The act of making a false statement in the attendance logbook squarely qualities as an act of dishonesty and any willful concealment of fact in the logbook amounts to misconduct. 5 Pertinent herein is Administrative Circular No. 2-99, January 15, 1999, which reads:

II. Absenteeism and tardiness, even if such do not qualify as "habitual" or "frequent" under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1991, shall be dealt with severely, and any falsification of daily time records to cover-up for such absenteeism and/or tardiness shall constitute gross dishonesty or serious misconduct. (emphasis supplied)

In the case at bar, it is not disputed that respondent altered the entries in the attendance logbook for March 8 and 15, 2010. However, the resolution of this aspect of the case ultimately rests on whether or not such alteration was made to cover-up respondent's absenteeism and/or tardiness. Corollarily, the question of utmost significance is whether or not respondent indeed attended work on March 8 and 15, 2010 for if he was absent on those dates, then he will be liable for gross dishonesty or serious misconduct, warranting his dismissal from service. Contrariwise, he will be absolved of liability for the accusations levelled against him as regards the March incidents. Falsification could not have attended the case if the alteration was done to correct the entries rather than to conceal material facts.

Regrettably, the investigating judge failed to address this pivotal issue despite its being the primary reason why the case was referred to her for the second time. It was imperative to discover whether or not respondent indeed attended work during those dates to ascertain if the alteration was made to reflect what truly transpired or to distort the truth. Absent any conclusive finding on this matter, there is no basis to dismiss respondent for violating the above-cited administrative circular.

Furthermore, to sustain a finding of administrative culpability, substantial evidence is required or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 6 Having alleged falsification, it was incumbent upon Atty. Saber-de Zuñiga to overcome this burden of proof to establish such fact, which she failed to do. Aside from alleging that respondent tampered the entries, she did not adduce evidence to prove that the new entries were in fact false. No verification was ever made to determine whether or not respondent was actually present during the dates in issue. Having no leg to stand on, the allegations of dishonesty and falsification for the March entries must necessarily fail. ADTEaI

February 2010 Records

A different conclusion can be arrived at as regards the February 2010 records. A perusal of the evidence offered by Atty. Saber-de Zuñiga would readily show that there is a glaring disparity between respondent's February 2010 entries in the court's attendance logbook and his DTR, to wit:

	Respondent's Time-in Entries
Date	Attendance Logbook 7	DTR 8
February 3, 2010	8:05AM	7:30AM
February 11, 2010	-	7:00AM
February 24, 2010	10:50AM	10:00AM

Respondent's claim that the discrepancies are due to the 15-minute leeway granted all employees of the branch fails to persuade. The time allowance cannot be used as a justification for simple arithmetic would confirm that the difference between the two entries clearly exceeds 15 minutes. Given that respondent already admitted entering non-tallying data and absent any viable explanation for doing so, the inescapable conclusion is that respondent committed the act in order to conceal his tardiness.

Having consciously made false entries in his DTR, respondent should be held liable for gross dishonesty, which normally carries the penalty of dismissal. Nevertheless, while this Court is duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline its errant employees and to weed out those who are undesirable, this Court also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy. 9 Thus, in several administrative cases, We refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating facts. Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by the employee ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe. 10

As observed by the investigating judge, respondent's length of service, acknowledgement of the offense, and promise not to commit the same after he was confronted by Atty. Saber-de Zuñiga should be taken into consideration in determining the penalty to be imposed. In view of these equitable considerations, We deem a three-month suspension with stern warning sufficient for now to discipline the erring respondent in lieu of dismissal from service. 11

ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds Ronaldo A. Cruz GUILTY of dishonesty in not faithfully reflecting the exact time of his arrival and departure in his daily time record. He is hereby SUSPENDED for three (3) months without pay, and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. (Villarama, Jr., J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014.)

SO ORDERED." AEIDTc

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 57.

2. Office of the Court Administrator v. Jotic, A.M. No. P-08-2542, November 28, 2008, 572 SCRA 361, 370; citing Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty against Elizabeth Ting, Court Secretary 1, and Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division, A.M. Nos. 2001-7-SC & 2001-8-SC, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 1, 15.

3. Office of the Court Administrator v. Araya, Jr., A.M. No. P-12-3053, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 124, 133.

4. Office of the Court Administrator v. Breta, A.M. No. P-05-2023, March 6, 2006, 484 SCRA 114, 117.

5. Office of the Court Administrator v. Jotic, A.M. No. P-08-2542, November 28, 2008, 572 SCRA 361, 370.

6. Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez, A.M. No. P-10-2788, January 18, 2011, 639 SCRA 633, 637.

7. Rollo, pp. 29-31.

8. Id. at 32-33.

9. Cabigao v. Nery, A.M. No. P-13-3153, October 14, 2013.

10. Office of the Court Administrator v. Araya, Jr., supra note 3.

11. Re: Falsification of Daily Time Records of Maria Fe P. Brooks, Court Interpreter, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 69, and Andria Forteza-Crisostomo, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 39, A.M. No. P-05-2086, October 20, 2005.