In a ruling that reinforces the importance of integrity within the Philippine judiciary, the Supreme Court addressed administrative complaints against numerous court personnel in Baguio City for irregularities in attendance logging. The Court’s decision underscores that even seemingly minor infractions, such as falsifying time records, can lead to significant penalties, emphasizing the high ethical standards expected of those serving in the justice system. This case clarifies the distinctions between various levels of negligence and dishonesty, providing a framework for future administrative proceedings involving similar conduct. By addressing issues ranging from simple oversights to deliberate falsifications, the Supreme Court sends a clear message about accountability and the need for strict adherence to office rules and regulations.

Bundy Cards and Logbooks: Did Baguio Court Employees Commit Timekeeping Sins?

The case began with a complaint filed by Sheriff Oliver N. Landingin, alleging bias and partiality against Judge Mona Lisa T. Tabora, supported by a video purporting to show employees falsifying their Daily Time Records (DTR). This prompted the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to launch a discreet investigation into the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Baguio City. The investigation revealed widespread irregularities, including employees making false entries in logbooks, failing to log in and out, and instances of loafing during office hours. These findings led to administrative charges against numerous court personnel, ranging from judges and clerks of court to utility workers and stenographers.

During the investigation, the OCA team inspected the logbooks of each branch/office within the Baguio courts, identifying those who made untruthful entries, thereby potentially committing acts of dishonesty and falsification. A roll call of employees was conducted, and the team later compared their findings with the certified true copies of the May 2011 Daily Time Records (DTR)/bundy clock cards of the court personnel. These were crucial pieces of evidence. The irregularities were grouped into the following personnel classifications: 1) those who have no entries in the attendance log books/sheets; 2) those who have no time-outs in the attendance log books/sheets; 3) those who made untruthful time-outs in the attendance log books/sheets; and 4) the Judges and the Clerks of Court who certified the DTRs of the above court personnel.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, modified some of the recommendations of the OCA. The Court found that employees who failed to enter their time-in or time-out in the office logbook were liable for violation of reasonable office rules and regulations, as opposed to simple negligence. OCA Circular 7-2003 mandates that every Clerk of Court maintain a logbook in which all officials and employees indicate their daily time of arrival and departure. The Court emphasized that the failure to comply with this rule, especially for the first time, warrants a reprimand. In Contreras v. Monge, the Court classified the failure of court personnel to enter their time-in and time-out in the office logbook as a light offense.

Regarding the personnel who made untruthful time-outs, the Court found their explanations unmeritorious, as they claimed the OCA team arrived after 5:00 PM, contradicting the team’s report that the roll call was conducted before 5:00 PM. The Court referred to the rule in Flores-Tumbaga v. Tumbaga, stating that there is a presumption that witnesses are not actuated by any improper motive absent any proof to the contrary and that their testimonies must accordingly be met with considerable, if not conclusive, favor under the rules of evidence because it is not expected that said witnesses would prevaricate and cause the damnation of one who brought them no harm or injury.

The Supreme Court emphasized that falsification of a DTR by a court personnel is a grave offense. As stated in Office of the Court Administrator v. Kasilag,

Falsification of a DTR by a court personnel is a grave offense. The nature of this infraction is precisely what the OCA states: the act of falsifying an official document is in itself grave because of its possible deleterious effects on government service.

The Court however, considered this as the first time these personnel would be held administratively liable and imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (PhP5,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely.

For the judges and clerks of court who erroneously certified the daily time records, the Supreme Court referenced jurisprudence to justify admonishing them rather than issuing a reprimand. Citing Re: Complaint of Executive Judge Tito Gustilo, RTC, Iloilo City, Against Clerk of Court Magdalena Lometillo, RTC, Iloilo City, the Court ruled that for failure to properly supervise the personnel under her, respondent Atty. Magdalena Lometillo, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, is admonished to be more circumspect in the discharge of her official duties. The Court also cited Re: Audit Report on Attendance of Court Personnel of Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Manila, where the Court stated that Judge Nabong would have been admonished for not being stricter with his subordinates in the observance of the rules on the use of the logbook.

In the case of Clerk III Dominador B. Remiendo, the Court ruled that dismissal should not be imposed if a less punitive penalty would suffice. As stated in Velasco v. Obispo,

the Court also ruled that 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. It is not only for the law’s concern for the workingman; there is, in addition, his family to consider.

Considering Remiendo’s admission of error, apology, and lack of prior administrative liability, the Court ordered a suspension of six months with a stern warning.

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a potent reminder to all court personnel of their duty to act with honesty and integrity. As the Court emphasized in Gubatanga v. Bodoy,

This Court will not tolerate dishonesty. Persons involved in the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the lowest employee, must live up to the strictest standards of integrity, probity, uprightness and diligence in the public service.

The ruling underscores the critical role of court employees in upholding the judiciary’s image as a temple of justice.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was addressing administrative complaints against numerous court personnel for irregularities in attendance logging, including falsifying time records and failing to log in and out properly.
What is the significance of OCA Circular 7-2003?	OCA Circular 7-2003 mandates that every Clerk of Court must maintain a logbook where all court personnel record their daily time of arrival and departure, ensuring accountability and proper timekeeping.
What penalty was imposed for failing to log time-in and time-out?	For first-time offenders, the penalty for failing to log time-in and time-out was a reprimand, with a stern warning that future violations would be dealt with more severely.
What constitutes a grave offense in this context?	Falsification of a DTR by court personnel is considered a grave offense due to its potential to undermine government service and its violation of public accountability and integrity.
Why were some judges and clerks of court admonished?	Judges and clerks of court were admonished for failing to properly supervise their subordinates, particularly in the logging of their attendance, indicating a need for stricter oversight.
What factors did the Court consider in determining penalties?	The Court considered factors such as whether it was a first-time offense, admission of error, remorse, and the severity of the infraction in determining appropriate penalties.
What message does this case send to court personnel?	This case sends a clear message to all court personnel about the importance of honesty, integrity, and adherence to office rules and regulations, reinforcing the need for accountability at all levels.
What is the effect of admitting wrongdoing in administrative cases?	Admitting wrongdoing can be considered a mitigating factor, potentially leading to a less severe penalty, as seen in the cases of Remiendo and Mariano, who received suspensions instead of dismissal.
What is the consequence of falsely claiming the OCA team falsified their report?	A bare denial is not enough to overcome the positive testimonies of witnesses, like the OCA team. There is the rule that there is a presumption that witnesses are not actuated by any improper motive absent any proof to the contrary.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this administrative matter highlights the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining high ethical standards and ensuring accountability among its personnel. By carefully calibrating the penalties based on the nature and severity of the offenses, the Court seeks to strike a balance between upholding justice and providing opportunities for reform. This case serves as a valuable precedent for future administrative proceedings, reinforcing the importance of honesty, punctuality, and adherence to office rules and regulations within the Philippine judiciary.

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: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. EXECUTIVE JUDGE ILLUMINADA P. CABATO, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2401, January 25, 2017