Case Digest (A.M. No. P-13-3130)
Facts:
Office of the Court Administrator v. May F. Hernandez, A.M. No. P-13-3130 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3668-P], September 22, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The complaint arose from an anonymous letter received by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) alleging that May F. Hernandez, Clerk III of Branch 199, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Las Piñas City, habitually arrived late for work but altered the court’s attendance logbook by inserting her name just above or nearly on the dividing line (the series of X marks) between on-time arrivals and tardy arrivals, thereby creating the appearance that she reported on time; the letter claimed this conduct had persisted for over a year and affected office morale.
The OCA referred the matter to Executive Judge Elizabeth Yu‑Guray of the RTC, Las Piñas City, for discreet investigation. In a January 24, 2011 Report, Executive Judge Guray issued a reprimand but, upon OCA direction that the action was insufficient, conducted a more thorough inquiry. In a March 22, 2011 Report, Executive Judge Guray concluded that the evidence showed respondent may be held liable for dishonesty; she recounted an earlier referral to Presiding Judge Joselito DJ Vibandor and noted respondent’s November 17, 2010 explanation attributing her condition to marital and health troubles.
The OCA sent an indorsement dated July 7, 2011 asking respondent to comment on the Executive Judge’s report. In her Comment dated July 25, 2011, respondent admitted tampering with the attendance logbook and that she had in fact been tardy during September and October 2010; she also submitted her earlier explanatory letter. The OCA treated the falsified logbook entries as carrying over into respondent’s Daily Time Records (DTRs), rendering those DTRs products of forgery, and found the conduct violative of OCA Circular No. 2‑2003. Applying Section 46, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (which classifies falsification of official documents such as DTRs as a grave offense), the OCA recommended a penalty of six months’ suspension without pay and a stern warning.
The matter was docketed before the Court as an administrative case (A.M. No. P-13-3130). The Supreme Court reviewed the records, agreed that respondent committed dishonesty by falsifying attendance entries and DTRs, considered mitigating circu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent commit dishonesty by falsifying the court’s attendance logbook and Daily Time Records?
- If guilty, what is the appropriate pen...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)