The Supreme Court addressed administrative liabilities arising from the falsification of Daily Time Records (DTRs) and neglect of duty within the judiciary. The Court ruled that public servants, particularly those in the judiciary, must uphold the highest standards of honesty and integrity, reinforcing the principle that public office is a public trust. This decision emphasizes accountability and the need for strict adherence to ethical standards to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.

When Minutes Matter: Upholding Honesty in the Halls of Justice

This case originated from a memorandum issued by Darryl C. Montealto, Clerk of Court II, regarding irregularities in the Daily Time Records (DTRs) of court personnel at the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Sapang Dalaga-Concepcion, Misamis Occidental. The memorandum highlighted concerns about personnel failing to accomplish DTRs on time, falsifying records, and not observing prescribed office hours. The initial investigation, led by Judge Teodoro L. Dipolog, recommended a reprimand for all involved for failing to maintain a harmonious work environment.

However, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the allegations to be serious, leading to a further investigation. This investigation revealed a pattern of misconduct, particularly regarding DTR entries. Respondents Fe O. Pao, Brillo B. Portacion, Phebe A. Velez, Cesario E. Alumbro, and Zaldy V. Pamatong were found to have repeatedly failed to properly fill out their DTRs, often marking themselves as present when they were absent. Montealto, as Clerk of Court, certified the correctness of these falsified DTRs despite his knowledge of the discrepancies.

The central legal issue revolved around the administrative liabilities of court employees who falsified their DTRs and the Clerk of Court who certified them. The Court emphasized that everyone in the judiciary must be beyond reproach and free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. The Court referenced the case of Mirano v. Saavedra, underscoring that “public service requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline,” and that “the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.”

The Court found Pao, Portacion, Velez, Alumbro, and Pamatong liable for making false entries in their DTRs. Even though the logbooks from 1996 to July 4, 2000, were not properly maintained, the Court noted that the respondents did not deny or disprove their acts of falsification during the investigation. These acts were in direct violation of the Civil Service Commission Revised Uniform Rules (CSC Revised Uniform Rules). As such, **falsification of an official document is considered a grave offense** punishable by dismissal.

Montealto was also found liable. He was responsible for certifying the correctness of DTRs he knew to be false, effectively cooperating in the offenses. Additionally, he was found guilty of gross neglect of duty for failing to discipline employees who repeatedly violated civil service rules. **Clerks of Court are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts and are tasked with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings**. The CSC Revised Uniform Rules also penalizes dishonesty with dismissal for the first offense. Although dismissal was warranted, the Court considered the mitigating circumstance that none of the respondents had prior administrative charges. Citing Section 53 of the CSC Revised Uniform Rules, the Court has discretion to consider mitigating circumstances even if not pleaded.

In the end, the Court imposed a penalty of suspension for six months and one day without pay for Montealto, Pao, Portacion, Velez, Alumbro, and Pamatong. This decision sends a clear message regarding the importance of integrity and honesty within the judiciary. Public servants, especially those in the judicial branch, are expected to maintain the highest ethical standards. Any deviation from these standards will be met with appropriate disciplinary action. Bation was cleared of all charges.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether court employees and the Clerk of Court should be held administratively liable for falsifying Daily Time Records (DTRs) and for neglect of duty in supervising the accurate recording of work hours.
Who were the respondents in this case?	The respondents included Clerk of Court II Darryl C. Montealto, Court Interpreter I Pedro Rio G. Bation, Court Stenographer I Fe O. Pao, Court Stenographer I Brillo B. Portacion, Clerk II Phebe A. Velez, Junior Process Server Cesario E. Alumbro, and Utility Worker I Zaldy V. Pamatong.
What is a Daily Time Record (DTR)?	A Daily Time Record (DTR) is an official document used to record an employee’s daily attendance, including their arrival and departure times, and is used for payroll and administrative purposes. Falsifying this document is a serious offense.
What were the specific violations committed by the court employees?	The court employees, namely Pao, Portacion, Velez, Alumbro, and Pamatong, were found to have failed to fill out their DTRs daily, were frequently out of the office during office hours, and falsified their DTR entries to reflect that they were present when they were not.
What was the liability of the Clerk of Court?	Clerk of Court Montealto was held liable for dishonesty and gross neglect of duty for certifying the correctness of the falsified DTRs and for failing to discipline the erring employees despite their repeated violations of civil service rules.
What penalties were imposed by the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court suspended Darryl C. Montealto, Fe O. Pao, Brillo B. Portacion, Phebe A. Velez, Cesario E. Alumbro, and Zaldy V. Pamatong for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay. The charges against Pedro Rio C. Bation were dismissed.
What is the significance of this ruling?	The ruling underscores the importance of maintaining integrity and honesty in public service, especially within the judiciary. It reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust and emphasizes the accountability of public servants.
What is the Civil Service Commission Revised Uniform Rules (CSC Revised Uniform Rules)?	The CSC Revised Uniform Rules outlines the regulations and penalties for administrative offenses committed by government employees. It covers various offenses, including dishonesty, falsification, and neglect of duty.
What mitigating circumstance was considered in this case?	The Court considered the fact that the respondents had no prior administrative charges as a mitigating circumstance, which led to the reduction of the penalty from dismissal to suspension.

In conclusion, this case serves as a significant reminder of the ethical responsibilities of those in public service, particularly within the judiciary. The Supreme Court’s decision to impose sanctions for falsification of official documents and neglect of duty highlights the importance of accountability and adherence to ethical standards to maintain public trust and confidence in the judicial system.

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: JUDGE TEODORO L. DIPOLOG VS. DARRYL C. MONTEALTO, A.M. No. P-04-1901, November 23, 2004