SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-10-2796. October 19, 2015.]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR,petitioner, vs. ALFREDO B. MAGNO, JR.,respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 19 October 2015which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-10-2796 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Alfredo B. Magno, Jr.) [Formerly A.M. No. 08-6-178-MTCC] (Re: Irregularity in the Daily Time Record [DTR] of Alfredo B. Magno, Jr., Clerk of Court III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro City).
In a 1st Indorsement dated May 19, 2008, 1 Judge Eleuteria Badoles-Algodon of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro City, forwarded to Atty. Caridad A. Pabello, Chief of Office, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the Daily Time Record (DTR) for the month of April 2008 of Clerk of Court III Alfredo B. Magno, Jr. (respondent), same court, alleging that she had refused to sign it because some entries therein differed from the respondent's entries in the court's logbook.
Judge Algodon attached to her indorsement her memorandum dated May 12, 2008, 2 requiring the respondent to explain within 72 hours why he should not be charged administratively for falsifying his April 2008 DTR, pointing out the alleged discrepancies in the entries in his DTR and the court's logbook for the said month.
|
Date
|
Logbook entry
|
DTR entry
|
| April 1, 2008 | P.M. No time out | 5:00 p.m. |
| April 2, 2008 | A.M. No time out | 12:00 NN |
| P.M. No entry | 12:30-5:00 p.m. | |
| April 3, 2008 | P.M. 1:00-5:00 | 12:30-5:00 p.m. |
| April 4, 2008 | 7:50-12:00 NN | 7:45-12:00 NN |
| April 16, 2008 | 7:25-12:00 NN | 7:35-12:00 NN |
| April 18, 2008 | PM-no entry | 12:30-5:00 p.m. |
| April 21, 2008 | A.M. No time out | 12:00 NN |
| PM-no entry | 12:30-5:00 p.m. |
Required to comment on the charges against him, the respondent claimed that Judge Algodon's refusal to sign his April 2008 DTR despite his explanation was intended to harass and get even with him for his having previously charged Judge Algodon with Oppression and Abuse of Authority.
The respondent admitted that there were indeed minor discrepancies in the entries of his attendance in his DTR and in the court's logbook. He explained that he only made estimates of the entries based on his usual time of arrival and departure from the court, as he was on sick leave in April 2008 and had no more access to the court's logbook. Claiming good faith, the respondent argued that he could not be held liable for falsification as he had no intention to defraud the judiciary.
In an Agenda Report dated April 29, 2010, 3 the OCA absolves the respondent of the charge of dishonesty for allegedly having falsified his April 2008 DTR. The OCA, however, finds him liable for violation of OCA Circular No. 7-2003 which requires every court official and employee to accomplish their DTRs after the end of each month by indicating therein truthfully and accurately their arrival and departure times.
The OCA reports:
Mr. Magno's official time (as appearing in the files of the Leave Division, OCA) starts at 8:00 A.M. and ends at 5:00 P.M. with a lunch break from 12:00 noon to 1:00 P.M. The discrepancies pointed to by Judge Algodon include respondent Magno's check-in time in the logbook on 4 and 16 April 2009 where noticeably, the former time had been made to appear earlier by 5 minutes and the latter was 10 minutes later in the DTR. In another instance on 3 April 2009, respondent Magno made it appear in his DTR that he checked in at 12:30 P.M. when in the logbook he logged in at 1:00 P.M. The subject time-in entries in both the logbook and the DTR, however, were registered earlier than his official check-in time of 8:00 A.M. and 1:00 P.M., as the case may be. It appears thus, that respondent Magno did not gain any benefit from the discrepancies. It would have been different if he made an entry earlier than actual to make it appear that he was not late in office. In which case, he would have benefited and the intention to defraud the government would have been very clear.
The other discrepancies consist of respondent's failure to record in the logbook his time of arrival and departure on certain dates in April 2008, while in his April 2008 DTR, he had a complete entry (please refer to the above table). The above discrepancies between the logbook and DTR entries of respondent Magno do not qualify so as to create a presumption of Falsification of DTR amounting to the administrative offense of Dishonesty against him because no damage had been caused against, nor was there any intention on the part of respondent Magno to defraud the government or any third person. His claim of good faith is more plausible on the premise that he usually reports for work well ahead of his official time that starts at 8:00 A.M.
The OCA recommends that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that the respondent be reprimanded for violations of reasonable office rules and regulations and of OCA Circular No. 7-2003.
Pursuant to the OCA's recommendation, the Court, in a Resolution dated June 21, 2010, 4 directed that the complaint against the respondent be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter. The respondent was also required to manifest whether he was willing to submit the complaint for the Court's decision on the basis of the pleadings and records already filed and submitted. He failed to comply within the period that expired on August 15, 2011; thus, the Court considered him as having waived the filing of the required manifestation.
Court records show that in a resolution dated January 25, 2010, issued by the Court's First Division in A.M. No. 09-12-208 MTCC, the respondent had already been dropped from the rolls effective July 21, 2008, for having been absent without official leave (AWOL). He filed a motion for reconsideration but the Court denied the motion with finality in a resolution dated September 22, 2010.
Dropping the respondent from the rolls does not necessarily mean that the present administrative complaint would be dismissed. The Court still retains the authority to resolve the case, as the complaint was filed before the respondent was dropped from the rolls. 5
It is settled that the Court does not lose its jurisdiction over an administrative case by the mere fact that the respondent public official ceases to hold office during the pendency of the respondent's case. 6 If only for reasons of public policy, this Court must assert and maintain its jurisdiction over members of the judiciary and other officials under its supervision and control for acts committed while in the service. If innocent, respondent official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the penalty proper and imposable under the circumstances. 7
The respondent's entries in the court's attendance logbook show that he was consistently punctual in coming to the office, reporting for work earlier than his official check-in time of 8:00 A.M. He explained that the discrepancies in his April 2008 DTR vis-à-vis the April 2008 attendance logbook transpired because his entries were only his honest estimate of his times of arrival and departure as he was on sick leave at the time he accomplished his DTR. He argued that he could not be held liable for falsification as he had no intention to defraud the judiciary and the public. He claimed good faith as indicated by the alleged falsified entry on April 18, 2008: the entry was 7:25 A.M. which was earlier than his estimated time-in on his DTR — 7:35 A.M. — 10 minutes later than what he had registered in the logbook.
The Court agrees with the OCA's finding that the discrepancies between the respondent's logbook and the DTR entries do not reach the level that would give rise to the presumption of falsification of DTR; nor can it amount to the administrative offense of dishonesty because no damage had been caused against the government and there was no intention on the part of respondent Magno to defraud the government or any third person. His claim of good faith is more plausible given that he usually reports for work well ahead of his official time that starts at 8:00 A.M."
While the Court absolves the respondent from the charge of falsification of his DTR, he should be held liable for violation of OCA Circular No. 7-2003 which requires court officials and employees to accomplish their DTRs after the end of each month, indicating therein truthfully and accurately their arrival and departure times.
WHEREFORE, the Court Resolves to DISMISS the charge of Falsification of DTR against respondent Alfredo B. Magno, Jr., former Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro City.
The Court further Resolves to approve the OCA's recommendation, and hereby REPRIMANDS respondent Alfredo B. Magno, Jr. for violation of OCA Circular No. 7-2003.
SOORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Carpio, J., on official leave; Brion, J., designated as acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 2222 dated September 29, 2015; De Castro, J., designated as acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, per Special Order No. 2250 dated October 14, 2015; Peralta, J., designated as acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Special Order No. 2223 dated September 29, 2015.
1. Rollo, p. 1.
2. Id. at 2.
3. Id. at 32-35.
4. Id. at 57.
5. Canlas-Bartolome v. Manio, A.M. No. P-07-2397, December 4, 2007, 539 SCRA 333, 338-339; Commission on Audit v. Pamposa, A.M. No. P-07-2291, June 25, 2007, 525 SCRA 471, 475; Narag v. Manio, A.M. No. P-08-2579, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 206, 213.
6. Aquino v. Miranda, A.M. No. P-01-1453, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 231; How v. Ruiz, A.M. No. P-05-1932, February 15, 2005, 451 SCRA 320, 325.
7. Perez v. Abiera, A.M. No. 223-J, June 11, 1975, 64 SCRA 302, 307.