A.M. No. P-13-3130 - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Herdez

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-13-3130)

Factual Background

The OCA received an anonymous letter reporting that the respondent would arrive late for work but would make it appear that she arrived on time. The letter alleged that she would insert her name right above or almost on the same line as the series of X marks in the court’s attendance logbook, which served as the dividing line between those who arrived on time and those who were already tardy. The letter further stated that the practice had been ongoing for more than a year and had begun to affect the morale of other employees.

Upon receipt of the letter, the OCA referred the matter to the Executive Judge Elizabeth Yu-Guray of the RTC of Las Pinas City for a discreet investigation and report. In a report dated January 24, 2011, Executive Judge Guray indicated that she had issued a resolution reprimanding the respondent. The OCA, however, found that action insufficient and required Executive Judge Guray to conduct a more thorough investigation.

In a report dated March 22, 2011, Executive Judge Guray concluded that the evidence on record showed that the respondent may be held liable for dishonesty. The report narrated that the respondent’s workplace had previously received an anonymous letter concerning similar conduct. The matter was then referred to the Presiding Judge Joselito DJ Vibandor of Branch 199, the same branch where the respondent rendered service. The respondent provided a letter-explanation dated November 17, 2010 to Judge Vibandor, where she begged for indulgence and attributed her conduct to heavy stress stemming from her marriage annulment and serious health issues at the time.

Following the investigation, the OCA issued a first indorsement dated July 7, 2011, directing the respondent to comment on Executive Judge Guray’s report finding possible liability for dishonesty. The respondent filed a Comment dated July 25, 2011, where she readily admitted the wrongdoing. She clarified that she had actually been tardy for the months of September and October 2010 and that she had manipulated her attendance entries to make it appear that she was not tardy. She also attached the earlier November 17, 2010 letter to the presiding judge.

Administrative Proceedings and the OCA’s Evaluation

After receiving the respondent’s comment and examining the records, the OCA concluded that the respondent’s own admissions established tampering with her entries in the attendance logbook. The OCA found that the respondent inserted her name just above or almost inside the line of X marks that distinguished on-time from tardy personnel. The OCA further found that these falsified attendance entries were carried over to the respondent’s DTRs, making the DTRs a product of forgery.

The OCA considered this conduct a violation of OCA Circular No. 2-2003 (dated 9 January 2003), which required judges and court personnel, in submitting DTRs/Bundy cards, to indicate truthfully and accurately the time of arrival and departure. The OCA also cited Section 46, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (promulgated on 19 November 2011), which classifies falsification of official documents, including an employee’s DTR, as a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service.

Despite these baseline rules, the OCA recommended a penalty of suspension for six (6) months without pay, effective immediately, and added a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

The Court’s Assessment of Liability

The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA’s evaluation that the respondent was guilty of dishonesty. The Court emphasized the respondent’s admission that she tampered with the attendance logbook by inserting her name above the X marks to create the appearance that she reported on time, although she was often tardy. The Court treated the act as dishonesty because it involved making it appear that she always reported for work on time, when the truth was otherwise.

In supporting this conclusion, the Court invoked Rufon v. Genita, where it had categorically pronounced that falsification of time records constitutes dishonesty, defining dishonesty as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud, and as lack of integrity and straightforwardness. The Court characterized the respondent’s conduct as deplorable and as falling below the standard expected of employees of the Judiciary.

The Court also reiterated that Section 46, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides that falsification of official documents such as an employee’s DTR is a grave offense punishable by dismissal. Thus, the respondent’s liability for dishonesty was firmly established. The Court, however, proceeded to consider whether the extreme penalty of dismissal should be imposed in the particular circumstances.

Legal Basis for the Penalty and Mitigating Considerations

Although the rules classify falsification of DTRs as a grave offense punishable by dismissal, the Supreme Court stated that it did not believe that such an extreme penalty should be imposed on the respondent. The Court relied on Section 48, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which provides that the disciplining authority may consider mitigating circumstances in imposing the proper penalty.

The Court then compared earlier cases where it had shown a measure of compassion toward erring employees despite findings of dishonesty related to DTR falsification. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Magbanua, the Court found the process server guilty of dishonesty for making false and inaccurate entries in his DTRs but imposed only a fine equivalent to one month’s salary. The Court in that case reasoned that the law is concerned for the working man, and that the employee’s unemployment would bring hardship to dependents. It also considered as mitigation the fact that the employee had been with the court since 1985.

Similarly, in Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Gutierrez III, the Court imposed only a P5,000.00 fine for falsification of a DTR. In that case, the Court considered that the respondent readily admitted wrongdoing and that it was the first time an administrative case had been filed against him in the five years he had served in government.

In the case at bar, the Court identified additional reasons to exercise leniency. The respondent readily admitted her offen

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-13-3130)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initiated an administrative complaint against May F. Hernandez, Clerk III of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 199, Las Pinas City, charging her with dishonesty.
The OCA received an anonymous letter reporting alleged misconduct by Hernandez involving attendance records.
The OCA referred the matter to Executive Judge Elizabeth Yu-Guray of the RTC of Las Pinas City for discreet investigation and report.
Executive Judge Yu-Guray initially reported that she issued a resolution reprimanding respondent, which the OCA found insufficient.
The OCA directed Executive Judge Yu-Guray to conduct a more thorough investigation, after which she reported potential liability for dishonesty.
The OCA issued a 1st Indorsement dated July 7, 2011 directing Hernandez to comment on the adverse report.
Hernandez submitted her Comment dated July 25, 2011, where she admitted wrongdoing and later proceedings culminated in the Court’s resolution.
The Court held Hernandez administratively liable and imposed a penalty of suspension for six months without pay, with a stern warning.

Key Factual Allegations

An anonymous letter alleged that respondent would arrive late for work but would insert her name in the attendance logbook so that it appeared she arrived on time.
The anonymous letter stated that respondent’s insertion of her name was done right above or almost on the same line as the series of X marks, which served as the dividing line between on-time and tardy employees.
The letter alleged that the practice had been carried out for more than a year and that it affected the morale of other employees.
Executive Judge Yu-Guray reported that Hernandez tampered with her attendance logbook entries by placing her name above or within the X bar separating punctual from tardy personnel.
The falsified attendance entries were carried over to respondent’s Daily Time Record (DTR), which the OCA treated as a product of forgery.
Respondent later readily admitted in her Comment that she was actually tardy for September and October 2010 and that she falsified the attendance logbook entries to make it appear she was not tardy.

Investigation and Submissions

Executive Judge Yu-Guray reported that she previously acted on another anonymous letter concerning respondent’s conduct and referred the matter to the RTC branch where respondent rendered service.
The investigation included respondent’s letter-explanation dated November 17, 2010 submitted to Presiding Judge Joselito DJ Vibandor.
Respondent’s November 17, 2010 letter explained that she was heavily stressed due to marriage annulment and burdened with serious health issues at the time.
After the OCA determined the initial reprimand was insufficient, Executive Judge Yu-Guray conducted a more thorough assessment and concluded that the evidence on record showed respondent may be held liable for dishonesty.
Following the OCA’s July 7, 2011 Indorsement, respondent filed a Comment dated July 25, 2011 and attached the November 17, 2010 letter previously submitted to the Presiding Judge.
The OCA proceeded to evaluate liability and treated respondent’s admissions as corroborative evidence of the alleged falsification.

Applicable Rules and Guidelines

The Court treated respondent’s conduct as a violation of OCA Circular No. 2-2003, which required that Daily Time Records (DTRs)/Bundy Cards reflect the time of arrival and departure truthfully and accurately.
The OCA Circular expressly directed court personnel to accomplish the monthly DTR indicating truthfully and accurately the time of arrival and departure.
The Court referenced Section 46, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, promulgated on November