This case underscores the importance of honesty and accuracy in the submission of Daily Time Records (DTRs) by court personnel in the Philippines. The Supreme Court, in this administrative matter, penalized several employees of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Manila, for failing to accurately log their attendance and subsequently misrepresenting their presence in their DTRs. The Court emphasized that while unintentional mistakes and good faith are not valid defenses against dishonesty, mitigating circumstances such as acknowledgment of transgression and first-time offense can lead to reduced penalties, balancing accountability with compassion in the administration of justice.

Logbook vs. DTR: When Court Employees’ Timekeeping Fell Short

This case originated from an audit conducted on the attendance records of court personnel at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, Manila. The audit revealed discrepancies between the court’s attendance logbook and the employees’ submitted Daily Time Records (DTRs). Several employees, including officers-in-charge, clerks, and stenographers, were found to have failed to log their attendance properly and subsequently reported inaccurate attendance in their DTRs. This prompted an investigation by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), leading to administrative charges against the involved personnel. The central issue was whether the employees violated Civil Service Rules and Regulations on attendance and whether their actions constituted dishonesty or falsification of official documents.

The OCA’s investigation revealed that several employees had failed to log in or out in the attendance logbook on multiple occasions, yet their DTRs indicated full attendance on those days. For instance, Loida Moralejo, the Officer-in-Charge, never logged in or out, claiming exemption with the judge’s consent, but submitted DTRs showing complete attendance. Similarly, Heidwig Marie O. Balicanta, Clerk III, never logged in since her employment but also submitted DTRs indicating full attendance. Other employees, including Elma Dabbay, Virginia Peralta, Paquito del Rosario, and Andresito Robles, had specific instances of failing to log in but reporting presence in their DTRs. The OCA concluded that these discrepancies constituted a falsity and recommended penalties ranging from fines to admonishment, depending on the severity of the infraction and the employee’s position. According to Section 23, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292:

Sec. 23. Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave, and light, depending on the gravity of its nature and effects of said acts on the government service.

The following are grave offenses with its corresponding penalties:

(a) Dishonesty (1st Offense, Dismissal)

(b) Falsification of official document (1st Offense Dismissal)

The employees, in their defense, generally admitted to the omissions but claimed they acted in good faith and that the inaccuracies were unintentional mistakes. Moralejo argued that she believed as OIC, she was exempt from the logging-in requirement. Balicanta explained that her failure to log in was an oversight, as she was used to logging directly into her DTR. The OCA, however, maintained that ignorance of the rules was not an excuse and that the discrepancies between the logbook and DTRs constituted dishonesty. However, the OCA also recognized mitigating circumstances, such as the employees’ admission of wrongdoing and their lack of prior administrative offenses, which warranted a reduction in the severity of the penalties.

The Supreme Court, in its resolution, affirmed the OCA’s findings but modified the recommended penalties. The Court acknowledged that while the employees’ actions constituted dishonesty, the extreme penalty of dismissal was not warranted given the mitigating circumstances. Building on this principle, the Court considered precedents where similar offenses resulted in fines rather than dismissal. Citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Sirios, the Court emphasized that it does not hastily impose extreme penalties, especially when mitigating factors exist. Further, in the case of Reyes-Domingo v. Morales, a branch clerk of court found guilty of dishonesty in DTR entries was fined P5,000.00.

The Supreme Court also addressed the liability of Judge Juan C. Nabong, Jr., the presiding judge, for his failure to properly supervise the implementation of attendance rules. Judge Nabong explained that his compliance was delayed due to health issues and a lack of readily available copies of the relevant Civil Service Rules. The Court found his explanation unacceptable, emphasizing that a resolution or directive from the Supreme Court or the OCA should not be construed as a mere request. The Court noted that his failure to comply promptly constituted disrespect for the Court’s lawful directive. As the Court articulated in Imbang v. Del Rosario:

the office of the judge requires him to obey all the lawful orders of his superiors. It is gross misconduct, even outright disrespect for the Court, for respondent judge to exhibit indifference to the resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaint thoroughly and substantially. After all, a resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely.

Despite Judge Nabong’s retirement, the Court asserted its jurisdiction over the administrative matter. The Court acknowledged his health issues as mitigating circumstances but still imposed a fine for his unjustified delay in complying with the directives. The Court emphasized that even with human limitations, judges must give due attention to the directives of the OCA and the Court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found the employees guilty of dishonesty and imposed fines ranging from P2,000.00 to P5,000.00, depending on their position and the extent of their infractions. Judge Nabong was also fined P1,000.00 for his failure to promptly comply with the directives of the OCA and the Court. This approach contrasts with the initial recommendation of dismissal, highlighting the Court’s consideration of mitigating factors in administrative cases.

The Court also considered its previous decisions in similar cases to determine the appropriate penalties. This approach contrasts with a strict application of the rules, demonstrating the Court’s willingness to consider the specific circumstances of each case. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Villaflor, a clerk of court who made untruthful entries in the logbook was fined P5,000.00. Similarly, in Office of the Court Administrator v. Saa, a clerk of court who misrepresented his presence in the office was fined P5,000.00. The Court applied these precedents to the present case, emphasizing the need for consistent and equitable application of penalties. Therefore, by imposing fines rather than dismissal, the Court balanced the need for accountability with the recognition of mitigating circumstances.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether court personnel violated Civil Service Rules by failing to accurately log their attendance and misrepresenting their presence in their Daily Time Records (DTRs). This raised questions of dishonesty and falsification of official documents.
What were the discrepancies found?	Several employees failed to log in or out in the attendance logbook on multiple occasions, yet their DTRs indicated full attendance on those days, creating a mismatch between the official record and reported presence.
What defense did the employees offer?	The employees generally admitted to the omissions but claimed they acted in good faith and that the inaccuracies were unintentional mistakes, often citing oversight or misinterpretation of the rules.
What penalties were initially recommended by the OCA?	The OCA recommended penalties ranging from fines to admonishment, depending on the severity of the infraction and the employee’s position, with a consideration for mitigating circumstances.
How did the Supreme Court modify the penalties?	The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of dishonesty but reduced the penalties to fines ranging from P2,000.00 to P5,000.00, considering the mitigating circumstances such as admission of wrongdoing and lack of prior offenses.
Why wasn’t dismissal imposed?	The Court cited precedents and emphasized that it does not hastily impose the extreme penalty of dismissal, especially when mitigating factors exist, balancing accountability with compassion.
What was Judge Nabong’s role in this case?	Judge Nabong, as the presiding judge, was found liable for failing to properly supervise the implementation of attendance rules and for his unjustified delay in complying with directives from the OCA and the Court.
What penalty was imposed on Judge Nabong?	Judge Nabong was fined P1,000.00 for his failure to promptly comply with the directives of the OCA and the Court, despite his claims of health issues.
Did Judge Nabong’s retirement affect the case?	No, the Court asserted that it was not ousted of its jurisdiction over the administrative matter by the mere fact that the respondent public official ceased to hold office during the pendency of the case.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of integrity and accountability within the judiciary. While the Court recognized mitigating circumstances and reduced the penalties, it also emphasized the need for strict compliance with attendance rules and directives from higher authorities. It sets a precedent for balancing the need for accountability with the recognition of human fallibility in administrative cases.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RE: AUDIT REPORT ON ATTENDANCE OF COURT PERSONNEL OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 32, MANILA, A.M. NO. P-04-1838, August 31, 2006