Title
Lasam vs. Mamauag
Case
A.M. No. P-15-3342 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-3074-P)
Decision Date
Jul 30, 2024
Mamauag, a Clerk of Court, was found guilty of serious dishonesty and falsification of attendance records. He was dismissed from service with forfeiture of benefits.
serious dishonesty
falsification
public documents

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-15-3342)

Factual Background

The administrative case stemmed from Mamauag’s failure to submit his DTRs for February to October 2008, which caused his salaries and other benefits for those months to be withheld. To remedy the situation, Mamauag later submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) DTRs covering February to October 2008. However, the DTRs were submitted without the required certification by Judge Lasam.

After the submissions, the matter was referred to Judge Lasam for signature through a first indorsement dated November 11, 2008 by then Deputy Court Administrator Reuben P. Dela Cruz. Judge Lasam then declined to certify the DTRs in a letter dated December 11, 2008, citing multiple discrepancies. He observed that several logbook entries on specific dates did not tally with the corresponding entries in the DTRs, that there were logbook entries absent from the DTRs and vice versa, and that the logbook entries appeared not to have been filled in by Mamauag himself. Judge Lasam further pointed out anomalies in the handwriting and signature, including the claim that the initials used during the relevant period did not match Mamauag’s usual signature patterns, and he asserted a strong probability that someone other than Mamauag filled up the logbook.

Administrative Handling and Respondent’s Initial Defenses

The OCA treated Judge Lasam’s letter as a complaint and required Mamauag to file a Comment. In his Comment, Mamauag denied the charges. He explained that he had allegedly believed, in good faith, that as Clerk of Court he should submit a Certificate of Service instead of a DTR under the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court. He also claimed punctuality and invoked Resolution No. 53 from the Sangguniang Bayan of Rizal, Cagayan, which attested to his punctuality as a public servant. Mamauag maintained that he used to have many strokes in writing and that he inadvertently deviated from his customary handwriting that was on file. He asked for mercy and compassion, promised not to repeat the alleged mistake, and supported his position with Resolution No. 53 and affidavits attesting to his honesty and competence.

Judge Lasam submitted a Reply, emphasizing that Mamauag failed to refute the specific charges. Judge Lasam also argued that treating the irregularities as purely human miscalculation would set a dangerous precedent, as such a defense could enable an employee to evade accountability for serious wrongdoing.

Referral for Investigation and Evidentiary Development

In a Resolution dated August 12, 2009, the Court referred the administrative case to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Tuao, Cagayan for investigation, report, and recommendation. The records were then assigned to Judge Rolando R. Velasco, who investigated the case but later retired. Through a Resolution dated October 12, 2011, the Court directed Judge Edmar P. Castillo, Sr. to continue the investigation and submit the report and recommendation within sixty days.

During the investigation, the MTC’s Interpreter, Jesus Mamba, and Court Stenographer, Priscilla Mangiduyos testified and corroborated Judge Lasam. They stated that they were familiar with Mamauag’s handwriting and signature because Mamauag was the signatory of their DTRs. They attested that, upon scrutiny of the logbook, the entries for February to October 2008 were not made in Mamauag’s usual signature and penmanship. In particular, Mamba testified that he had been seeing the time in and time out written in the questioned form as “RL Mamauag” and initialed as “RLM” during the period in issue. He further stated that, during the questioned period, he did not see Mamauag make any entry in the logbook.

Investigating Judge’s Findings

In the Investigation Report/Recommendation dated August 27, 2014, the Investigating Judge recommended that Mamauag be found guilty of dishonesty and be dismissed from service. The Investigating Judge concluded that, even by naked eye comparison, entries in the logbook for other periods where Mamauag’s genuine signatures and initials appeared—such as entries from March 1, 2006 to August 23, 2006, March 1, 2007 to June 3, 2007, and a separate set covering December 1, 2008 to November 19, 2009—were written using Mamauag’s genuine signatures and initials. The Investigating Judge explained that those genuine markings were unquestionably different from the handwriting, signatures, and initials purportedly made by Mamauag in the logbook for the period February 2008 to November 2008. The Investigating Judge therefore concluded without doubt that the logbook entries on attendance during the questioned period were written and entered by someone other than Mamauag.

Proceedings Before the Court and Recommendations of the Judicial Integrity Board

In a Resolution dated July 15, 2015, the Court noted the Investigating Judge’s report and re-docketed the complaint as a regular administrative matter against Mamauag, directing the parties to manifest if they would submit on the record. Judge Lasam manifested willingness to submit based on the pleadings.

Subsequently, a letter informed the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) that Mamauag did not file compliance with the Court’s July 15, 2015 Resolution. Thus, the JIB was allowed to proceed based on the records.

In a Report and Recommendation dated February 20, 2023, the JIB-Office of the Executive Director (JIB-OED) recommended that Mamauag be found guilty of serious dishonesty and falsification of public documents, and be dismissed from service with forfeiture of benefits excluding accrued leave credits, along with disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations. The JIB-OED agreed with the core factual conclusion that Mamauag was not the author of the logbook entries for February to November 2008, indicating he was never around the office during the questioned period. It reasoned that Mamauag’s genuine signatures shown in his DTRs outside the questioned period were totally different from the entries in the logbook during the questioned period.

The JIB Proper, in a Report dated April 3, 2023, adopted the JIB-OED’s position. It found substantial evidence of administrative liability for dishonesty and falsification of official documents, rejecting Mamauag’s defense of simple human miscalculation as flimsy.

The Issue Before the Court

The Court framed the issue as whether Mamauag should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court first determined the procedural framework. It noted that on February 22, 2022, the Court En Banc unanimously approved A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC and that Rule 140 as further amended had become effective. The Court applied Section 24 (Retroactive Effect) of the Rules to pending and future administrative disciplinary cases involving judicial personnel, and thus resolved the case under the amended Rules.

The Court then applied the doctrinal understanding of dishonesty as requiring an intentional act. It cited the definition adopted in its own annotations, describing dishonesty as the concealment or distortion of truth showing lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive, or betray, and emphasized that, when dishonesty is charged, the element of intent controls. The Court reiterated that dishonesty is a willful and voluntary act that cannot be justified under the guise of negligence or ignorance, and it treated intent as ascertainable through the facts and circumstances surrounding the respondent’s acts.

On the merits, the Court agreed with the uniform findings of the Investigating Judge, the JIB-OED, and the JIB Proper that the entries in the logbook for the period February to October 2008 were not written by Mamauag. The Court held that a comparison of the records showed that the logbook entries immediately before and after the questioned period, together with Mamauag’s signatures appearing in his DTRs for that period, were written in his usual penmanship, signatures, and initials. In contrast, the names and signatures in the questioned period were written differently. The Court noted specific features: during the relevant period, the signatures were reduced to capital letters “RLM,” while Mamauag’s usual pattern involved a cursive short signature; and the letter proportions in the questioned period appeared extended compared to his normal handwriting.

The Court further treated the discrepancies between the logbook and the submitted DTRs as additional falsification. It recited that the time-in and time-out entries did not tally on numerous specific dates in February, March, April, and May 2008, and that there were entries in the logbook absent from the DTRs and vice versa. It also noted that Mamauag indicated absence on March 31, 2008 in his DTR, even though his name appeared in the logbook for that date. The Court similarly observed that Mamauag’s DTR indicated presence on several dates in May, June, July, and September 2008, yet his name did not appear in the logbook on those corresponding dates.

The Court held that making false statements in the attendance logbook renders an employee liable for dishonesty and falsification. It viewed willful concealment of facts in the logbook as mental dishonesty amounting to misconduct.

With respect to mitigation, the Court acknowledged that Mamauag pleaded for mercy and claimed that he would not repeat the alleged mistake. The Court nevertheless rejected his defense and noted that he repeatedly had someone else write his attendance in the logbook for nine months (February to October 2008). It found the magnitude and repetition of falsification incompatible with service in the judiciary.

Finally, the Court determined the proper penalty. Under the amended Rules, both serious dishonesty and falsification of official documents were classified as serious charges. The Court stated that, for serious charges, the punis

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms