In Judge Rolando G. How v. Teodora A. Ruiz, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of dishonesty committed by a court stenographer who falsified her Daily Time Record (DTR) and attendance logbook. The Court ruled that falsification of official documents constitutes dishonesty, a grave offense punishable under civil service rules. Despite the respondent’s prior separation from service, the Court retained jurisdiction to impose a fine, underscoring that administrative accountability persists even after an employee leaves their post. This decision reinforces the importance of honesty and integrity in public service and clarifies the Court’s authority to address misconduct, regardless of an employee’s current status.

Clocking In: When Honesty Takes a Holiday in Public Service

This case began with an affidavit-complaint filed by Judge Rolando G. How against Teodora A. Ruiz, a court stenographer. Judge How alleged that Ruiz falsified her DTR and attendance logbook for July 2001. The specific charges included making it appear that she reported for work on time when, in fact, she arrived late, and altering the logbook to match the falsified entries in her DTR. This led to an administrative case that wound its way through the Office of the Ombudsman and eventually to the Supreme Court.

Ruiz denied the allegations, claiming that Judge How’s complaint was part of a pattern of harassment and oppression against his staff. She argued that the complaint was filed in bad faith and intended to demoralize her. However, the Court had to determine the veracity of the falsification charges and whether it still had jurisdiction over Ruiz, given that she had been dropped from the rolls for being absent without official leave. The issue of jurisdiction became a central point of contention, with Ruiz arguing that the Court lost its authority over her once she was no longer an employee.

The Supreme Court addressed the jurisdictional question first, emphasizing that its authority to hear administrative cases is not automatically terminated when a respondent leaves public office. Citing Perez vs. Abiera, the Court reiterated that it retains jurisdiction to either exonerate or hold accountable public officials for actions committed during their tenure.

In other words, the jurisdiction that was Ours at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had ceased to be in office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof.

This principle ensures that public servants are held accountable for their actions, even after they have left their positions.

Turning to the substantive issue of falsification, the Court examined the evidence presented by both parties. Judge How contended that Ruiz committed three counts of falsification: first, on July 10, 2001, when she allegedly falsified her time of arrival in the attendance logbook; second, on August 14, 2001, when she allegedly falsified the time of her arrival for several dates in July; and third, on August 16, 2001, when she allegedly falsified the entries in her DTR. The Court scrutinized the logbook entries and the testimonies of witnesses to determine whether Ruiz had indeed falsified her records.

The Court found insufficient evidence to support most of Judge How’s allegations. It noted that the logbook entries showed Ruiz signing in ahead of other employees on some dates, contradicting the claim that she filled in all the entries at once on August 14, 2001. The Court also found the testimony regarding the alleged falsification of entries on July 18 and 19, 2001, to be unconvincing. However, the Court found merit in the allegation concerning the July 10, 2001, incident. The evidence showed that Ruiz initially wrote “8:00” as her time of arrival but later corrected it to “11:00” only after being questioned by her colleagues. This alteration, the Court reasoned, demonstrated dishonesty.

The Court addressed the issue of habitual tardiness, noting that Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, defines habitual tardiness as incurring tardiness ten times a month for at least two months in a semester or two consecutive months in a year. While Judge How presented evidence of Ruiz being late on several occasions, it did not meet the threshold for habitual tardiness as defined by the Civil Service rules. Consequently, the Court focused on the single instance of proven falsification as the basis for its ruling.

The Court then considered the appropriate penalty for dishonesty. The Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service prescribe dismissal from service for the first offense of dishonesty. However, since Ruiz had already been dropped from the rolls, the Court opted to impose a fine instead. Acknowledging that this was Ruiz’s first offense, the Court considered it a mitigating circumstance and imposed a fine of P5,000.00. This decision reflects the Court’s commitment to upholding ethical standards in public service while also considering the specific circumstances of each case.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a court stenographer could be held administratively liable for dishonesty due to falsification of her Daily Time Record (DTR) and attendance logbook, even after she had been dropped from the rolls of employees.
Did the Supreme Court retain jurisdiction over the case despite the respondent no longer being an employee?	Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed that it retains jurisdiction over administrative cases even if the respondent is no longer a public official, as long as the alleged infractions occurred during their tenure in public service.
What constitutes dishonesty in this context?	Dishonesty, in this case, refers to the act of falsifying official documents, such as the DTR and attendance logbook, to misrepresent one’s time of arrival and attendance at work.
What evidence did the Court consider in determining dishonesty?	The Court considered the entries in the attendance logbook, the DTR, and the testimonies of witnesses. It focused on instances where the respondent’s actions and entries contradicted each other, indicating an intent to deceive.
What is the penalty for dishonesty under civil service rules?	Under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service, even for the first offense.
Why was the respondent not dismissed in this case?	The respondent was not dismissed because she had already been dropped from the rolls for being absent without official leave (AWOL). The Court instead imposed a fine of P5,000.00.
What is habitual tardiness, and was the respondent found guilty of it?	Habitual tardiness is defined as incurring tardiness ten times a month for at least two months in a semester or two consecutive months in a year. The respondent was not found guilty of habitual tardiness.
What was the mitigating circumstance considered by the Court?	The Court considered the fact that this was the respondent’s first offense as a mitigating circumstance when determining the appropriate penalty.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Judge Rolando G. How v. Teodora A. Ruiz serves as a reminder of the high ethical standards expected of public servants. The case underscores that dishonesty, even in seemingly minor matters such as timekeeping, can have serious consequences. Moreover, it affirms that public officials cannot escape accountability for their actions simply by leaving their positions. The ruling reinforces the importance of honesty and integrity in public service and clarifies the Court’s authority to address misconduct, regardless of an employee’s current status.

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 ROLANDO G. HOW v. TEODORA A. RUIZ, A.M. No. P-05-1932, February 15, 2005