A.M. No. 15-05-50-MCTC - IN RE: Incorrect entries in the daily time record of Lorna M. Martin, court stenographer I, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Tarlac

A letter dated September 3, 2014, addressed to the Office of Court Administrator (OCA) and signed by Judge Stela Marie Q. Gandia-Asuncion of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in Sta. Ignacia, Mayantoc, San Clemente, San Jose, Tarlac, reported that Ms. Lorna M. Martin, Court Stenographer I, made incorrect declarations in her Daily Time Record (DTR) for certain dates in May and August 2014.
Specifically, the DTR for August 11, 2014, showed an entry of 1:00 p.m. arrival and 5:00 p.m. departure while it was established that Martin did not report for work that afternoon.
A similar discrepancy was noted on May 6, 2014, when Martin’s DTR reflected an 8:00 a.m. arrival and 12:00 p.m. departure even though she was absent in the morning.
Additionally, incorrect entries in the logbook were observed on May 16, 2014.

In a first endorsement dated May 26, 2015, Martin was provided the opportunity to comment on the allegations. Her comment, submitted on September 16, 2015, vehemently denied the allegations.
Martin claimed that she had reported for work on the dates in question and attributed the error on May 6, 2014, to a mere oversight (a forgotten entry later corrected that afternoon).
She further admitted refusing to comply with Judge Gandia-Asuncion’s order to appear in chambers to explain her actions, justifying her absence by claiming illness and her duty as the assigned stenographer.
Martin also alleged that bias against her by the OIC Clerk of Court Rodelio A. Pedroche and her officemates—accused of not faithfully performing their duties—contributed to the mishandling of her DTR.

On April 18, 2018, a Court Resolution referred the matter to Judge Rixon M. Garong of Branch 37, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan for a full investigation pursuant to Administrative Order No. 217-2017.
Judge Garong, in his investigation report dated October 2, 2018, found that the entries on May 6, May 16, and August 11, 2014 were indeed falsified or tampered with, and that Martin exhibited willful disobedience toward her superiors.
The investigation involved the examination of the official DTR, relevant logbook entries, certifications by OIC-COC Pedroche, joint affidavits from Martin’s officemates, and the sworn comment of Judge Gandia-Asuncion.

Based on the evidence, Judge Garong recommended disciplinary sanctions against Martin for tampering with records and gross insubordination.
The OCA, in its recommendation on December 7, 2018, found Martin guilty of dishonesty and insubordination, and initially recommended a mitigated penalty of a two-month suspension from service without pay along with a stern warning against future similar offenses.
The case also referenced prior instances where Martin was involved in similar misconduct, highlighting a pattern of belligerence and defiance toward judicial authority.

The record shows that this was not the first instance of misconduct by Martin. A previous case (Hon. Gandia-Asuncion v. Martin) had already found her guilty of multiple counts of gross misconduct and gross insubordination based on similar transgressions, including defiance in adhering to court orders and misconduct reflected in other memoranda.
The earlier decisions underscored a consistent pattern of behavior that adversely affected the integrity and discipline within the court.

Ultimately, the Court adopted the factual findings by the OCA but modified the penalty, emphasizing that the tampering of an official document such as the DTR is not a minor error but a grave offense.
The Court’s decision was based on the seriousness of the repeated acts of falsification and the blatant disregard for lawful orders and office protocols.

Whether the incorrect declarations and alterations in the DTR and logbook entries by Martin constitute falsification of an official document, thereby amounting to an act of dishonesty and gross misconduct.
Whether these acts, in light of the evidence, are indicative of a deliberate disregard for the rules of public accountability and integrity.

Whether Martin’s refusal to comply with a direct order to explain her discrepancies—specifically her failure to appear before Judge Gandia-Asuncion as instructed—qualifies as gross insubordination.
Whether her conduct in defying lawful orders represents a willful disobedience that should be met with a severe penalty.

Whether the offenses committed, given their repetitive and multiple nature (i.e., falsification on three separate dates coupled with defiance of judicial authority), merit the imposition of stiff administrative sanctions under Section 14 and Section 21 of Rule 140.
Whether it is proper to modify the originally recommended penalty and impose fines instead of, or in addition to, disciplinary measures such as suspension or dismissal.