A.M. No. P-11-2953 - Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator vs. De Lemos

The case involves an administrative proceeding for dishonesty against six personnel of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balanga City, Bataan.
Respondents include:

The complainant in this administrative case is the Leave Division of the Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator.

The irregularities were noted in the bundy card entries for November 2009, wherein the affected employees allegedly punched in during the evening but made it appear as if they had arrived on time in the morning.
The discrepancies were discovered during the routine review of attendance records by the Leave Division.

On March 17, 2010, Deputy Court Administrator Jesus Edwin A. Villasor directed Executive Judge Remigio M. Escalada, Jr. to instruct the six personnel to explain the irregularities within 10 days and to supply a certified true copy of the court’s November 2009 logbook.
Judge Escalada responded on April 15, 2010, explaining that the logbook was lost during an office transfer from the Provincial Capitol Building to the Hall of Justice of Balanga City, with only a new logbook available from January 4, 2010.
An investigation was conducted on April 8, 2010, culminating in an Initial Investigation Report dated April 16, 2010, where all six personnel admitted to altering their bundy card entries.

The relocation of the court offices caused inconveniences (with the temporary office being 150 meters away from the bundy clock-equipped Hall of Justice), leading sometimes to forgetting to punch in on time.
Heavy rains on certain dates in November 2009 caused delays in their punching activities.

Despite their inability to produce tangible evidence for the mornings of November 6, 12, 17, 20, and 26, they presented testimonial evidence to assert that they did report for duty on those dates.
The three witnesses (Atty. Alfredo S. de la Cruz, District Attorney of the Public Attorney’s Office; Richard L. Salaya, Parole and Probation Officer II; and Rosanna A. Vergel, Administrative Aide IV) confirmed the presence of the respondents during most of the office hours of the questioned dates.
Furthermore, the respondents admitted that similar irregularities had occurred on two or three previous occasions before November 2009 when they “thought that there was really no harm done,” even noting instances of tardiness which they recorded on their attendance sheets.

Following Judge Escalada’s instruction, all six personnel submitted separate written explanations in which they acknowledged altering their bundy card entries for November 2009.
Their collective explanation maintained that the after-office-hours punching was intended merely to record their actual time-in.
In its Report dated May 3, 2011, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found all six personnel administratively liable, criticizing their justification as based on a mistaken belief that after-hours punching would not register as an altered entry.
The OCA viewed the affidavits of the witnesses as self-serving and insufficient in detailing the specific times of attendance.

The OCA recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter.
It suggested imposing a fine of:

₱3,000.00 each on Dominador C. Masangkay, Adelaida D. Tolentino, Ma. Fatima M. Yumena, Ma. Fe E. Yumol, and Ronald M. Taguinod along with a severe reprimand.
₱5,000.00 on Atty. Romeo L. de Lemos, given his higher level of administrative responsibility.

The recommendation was made with the admonition that any repetition of the irregular act would warrant a more severe penalty.

Whether the alterations in the bundy card entries, which were made after office hours to reflect morning attendance, constitute administrative dishonesty under the existing rules and guidelines.

The central question relates to the falsification of time records despite the claimed mitigating circumstances.

Whether the explanations and affidavits of the witnesses—who attested merely to the presence of the respondents during office hours—are sufficient to mitigate or excuse the irregularity.

The evidentiary value of testimonial evidence versus concrete timekeeping records is scrutinized.

Whether the loss of the original attendance logbook due to office relocation constitutes an acceptable excuse for the absence of corroborative evidence.

The court’s responsibility to ensure a reliable record of attendance is weighed against the contextual challenges faced.

The gravity of the offense of falsification or irregularities in time records.
The mitigating factors, including the respondents’ admitted errors, expressions of remorse, satisfactory performance rating, and length of service in the judiciary.