Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45953:am-p-04-1901&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:46:38+00:00

Document:
JUDGE TEODORO L. DIPOLOG, Complainant, v. 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, Utility Worker I ZALDY V. PAMATONG, Respondents.
In view of the retirement of Judge Conol on November 9, 2002, Ms. Vivian I. Berioso, Officer-in-Charge and Court Stenographer III, requested that another RTC Judge from Oroquieta City be assigned to investigate the matter. Thus, on January 22, 2003, the Court issued another Resolution referring the case for investigation to Executive Judge Ma. Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca (Judge Sitaca) of the RTC, Branch 13, Oroquieta City.
With respect to Pao, Portacion, Velez, Alumbro and Pamatong, the OCA noted that they made superficial denials regarding the charges against them and that their respective answers during the investigation were flimsy and not responsive. They failed to refute the charges against them in Montealto's July 4, 2000 Memorandum.
Judge Sitaca and the OCA also found that Pao, Portacion, Velez, Alumbro and Pamatong also made false entries in their DTRs by indicating therein that they were present at work when in fact they were somewhere else. Unfortunately, the logbooks of the MCTC from 1996 to July 4, 2000 are not properly accomplished and therefore cannot establish which particular entries in the DTRs of the aforementioned respondents are false. his notwithstanding, said respondents may still be held administratively liable for their acts of falsification which they did not deny nor disprove during the investigation conducted by Judge Sitaca on June 23, 2003 and in their Joint Comment dated May 4, 2001. It was established by substantial evidence that Judge Conol saw that they were not at their respective work stations during his three surprise visits to the MCTC and that because of their frequent loafing, Judge Conol directed Montealto to issue the July 4, 2000 Memorandum to call their attention to their transgressions.18 Their absence from the office, even for a few hours in one day, is certainly inconsistent with their declaration in their DTRs that they were present at work during those hours. Such declarations in the DTR undeniably amount to acts of falsification.
Falsification of an official document such as the DTR is considered a grave offense under the CSC Revised Uniform Rules and is penalized with dismissal for the first offense.19 It is also punishable as a criminal offense under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
Respondents Pao, Portacion, Velez, Alumbro and Pamatong are liable for two administrative offenses'first, for Loafing and/or Frequent Unauthorized Absences, and second, Falsification of Official Document. The first offense is penalized with suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first infraction, while the second offense is penalized with dismissal even for the first offense. Section 17, Rule XIV of the CSC Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 29227 provides that when the respondent is guilty of two or more charges, the penalty for the most serious charge should be imposed and the other charges may be considered as aggravating circumstances.
Montealto, on the other hand, is liable for dishonesty and gross neglect of duty, both of which are grave offenses penalized with dismissal even for the first offense under the CSC Revised Uniform Rules.
The Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA.
Section 53 of the CSC Revised Uniform Rules grants the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances although not pleaded by the respondent.
The Court has, in several cases, refrained from imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal where the erring employee had not been previously charged with an administrative offense.29 Inasmuch as the respondents in this case (except respondent Bation) have not been administratively charged prior to this case, the Court deems it proper to apply such mitigating circumstance in their favor and accordingly, to reduce the penalty imposable upon each of them to suspension for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day.
WHEREFORE, respondent Darryl C. Montealto, Clerk of Court II, is found guilty of Dishonesty and Gross Neglect of Duty and is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of a similar offense shall warrant a more severe penalty.
Respondents Fe O. Pao, Court Stenographer I; Brillo B. Portacion, Court Stenographer I; Phebe A. Velez, Clerk II; Cesario E. Alumbro, Junior Process Server; and Zaldy V. Pamatong, Utility Worker I, are found guilty of Falsification of Official Document and are hereby suspended for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay. Respondents are sternly warned that a repetition of a similar offense shall warrant a more severe penalty.
The charges against respondent Pedro Rio C. Bation, Court Interpreter I, are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Please be reminded that under the Civil Service Law, three (3) successive absences without leave (AWOL) is considered 'Habitual Absenteeism' and three (3) successive late in entrance to office is also considered 'Habitual Tardiness'. Both holds (sic) a penalty of ADMONITION FOR the first offense, SUSPENSION for the second offense, and DISMISSAL from the service for the third offense.
3. entries in the DAILY TIME RECORDS shall conform with entries in the LOG BOOK which shall be supervised by the undersigned everyday. Any DTR whose entries do not conformed (sic) with the entries in the LOG BOOK shall not be included in the monthly report and will be a ground for withholding of salary.
That he issued his memorandum of July 4, 2000 (p. 5, Record) in compliance with the order of RTC Judge Paulino Conol, then Presiding Judge of Branch 36, Calamba, Misamis Occidental, who had found, during three visits to the court in April, May and June 2000, that most of the court personnel were not around at the time of his visit.
That the "misbehaviour" of his subordinates had started from the time Judge Velez left the court in 1996 to July 4, 2000. The aforementioned respondents had been doing the acts complained of - "habitual non-filling up of dtr's daily, non-observance of office hours, and filling up of dtr's without absences", not successively but "sometimes off and on . . . They were only doing it once in one month" (p. 3, tsn).
That despite the fact that the entries in respondents' daily time records were not true, he signed and certified to their correctness "because of our good relationship, I don't want to admonish them, I will always remind them to change their behaviour" (tsn, p. 5) and they changed their behaviour after he issued his July 4, 2000 memorandum.
That he does not have a record of the time when the respondents were "misbehaving" from 1996 to July 4, 2000.
Process Server Cesario Alumbro - "Judge Conol is very strict when it comes to time. There was one time he arrived exactly at 12:00 already and we were already going out but his watch is still 11:45"
Utility Worker Zaldy Pamatong - "One time when Judge Conol came and I was not around, I was remanding records to the Prosecutor's Office".
'Stenographer Brillo Portacion - "One instance when Judge Conol went to our office it happened that I was in the assessor's office to get a copy of the tax declaration and he got angry because during office hours, we were not allowed to go to another office, the assessor office, . . . just across our office at a distance of 5 meters".
'Stenographer Fe Pao - ".. I just followed the advice of my lawyer regarding the memorandum".
Clerk Phebe Velez - ".. when Judge Conol came I was not in the office and when I returned to the office, Judge Conol left (Id. at 60-61).
9 From 1996 to July 4, 2000 when the Memorandum was issued.
16 See Joint Comment dated August 28, 2000, Id. at 21-22; TSN, June 23, 2003, Id. at 46-51.
17 Section 52.A.17, CSC Revised Uniform Rules.
18 See Betguen v. Masangcay, A.M. No. P-93-822, December 1, 1994, 238 SCRA 475.
19 Madrid v. Quebral, A.M. Nos. P-03-1744, P-03-1745, October 7, 2003, 413 SCRA 1; Villanueva v. Milan, 438 Phil. 560 (2002); Court Administrator v. Abdullahi, 429 Phil. 256 (2002); Galan v. Napase, A.M. No. P-90-417, April 10, 1992, 208 SCRA 1.
20 Escleo v. Dorado, 434 Phil. 801 (2002); Joson v. Macapagal, 432 Phil. 980 (2002); Racasa, et al. v. Collado-Calizo, 430 Phil. 775 (2002).
21 A.M. No. P-89-383, August 4, 1993, 225 SCRA 77.
23 Madrid v. Quebral, supra note 19, citing Dondiego v. Cuevas, A.M. No. P-03-1681, February 28, 2003, 398 SCRA 386.
24 Section 52.A.1, CSC Revised Uniform Rules.
25 Under Section 52.A.2, this offense is penalized with dismissal even for the first offense.
26 Madrid v. Quebral, supra note 19; Separa v. Maceda, 431 Phil. 1.
27 The Administrative Code of 1987.
29 Re: Alleged Tampering of Daily Time Record of Sherryl B. Cervantes, Court Stenographer III, Branch 18, RTC, Manila, A.M. No. 03-8-463-RTC, May 20, 2004; Office of the Court Administrator v. Sirios, A.M. No. P-02-1659, August 28, 2003, 410 SCRA 35; Reyes-Domingo v. Morales, A.M. No. P-99-1285, October 4, 2000, 342 SCRA 6.

References: v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.