EN BANC
[A.M. No. 99-9-11-SC. March 10,
2000]
Re:
Disciplinary Action against Ricardo Baniel III, Clerk III, Office of the
Reporter, Supreme Court
R E S O L U T I O N
PURISIMA, J.:
How does an enemy treat an adversy? Will an
enemy do something beneficial to his adversary? Or is an enemy one who almost
always inflicts harm upon his adversary? These and other questions are to be
answered in this simple and uncomplicated administrative case.
Ricardo Baniel III ("respondent"),
Clerk III of the Office of the Reporter, did not report for work from March 29,
1999 to April 22, 1999. Despite such absences during the aforesaid period,
however, he put a perfect attendance in his DTR.[1] Respondent did not file an Application for Leave
("Application") before his subject absences started. It was only on
June 1, 1999,[2] after his unreported absences were being looked into
did he belatedly file his corresponding application for leave.
When asked why his DTR reflected a perfect
attendance, respondent theorized that what appeared in his DTR must have been
the handiwork of his enemies. He averred that he lost his identification card
("ID") before March 29, 1999, and the same ID could have been found
by one of his enemies who then swiped his subject ID in the chronolog machine
so as to destroy his (respondent’s) name and reputation.[3]
After a thorough investigation, during which
respondent was afforded an opportunity to ventilate his defense, the Complaints
and Investigation Division ("CID") of the Office of Administrative
Services of the Court found respondent guilty of gross violation of pertinent
Civil Service Laws, office rules and regulations on the use of electronic bundy
clock.[4] Thus, the CID recommended respondent’s suspension
for one (1) month without pay.
After a careful study, the Court upholds the
aforesaid findings and recommendation of the CID as to the guilt of respondent.
Respondent himself admitted that from March 29, 1999 to April 22, 1999, he was
really absent but he failed to explain why his DTR covering the period of his
subject absences showed that he was present during the entire period of his
absences in question. Such happening or scenario could only signify that
somebody was swiping the ID of respondent in the chronolog machine.
The theory of respondent that he lost his ID
before March 29, 1999 and that an enemy of his must have picked it up to be
swiped in the chronolog machine, for the purpose of maligning him (respondent)
is too incredible to deserve faith and credit. He has not convinced the Court
how an enemy could do something beneficial to his supposed adversary. His claim
that an enemy would swipe the ID of his adversary daily just to evidence the
latter’s presence in the office because in so doing, the adversary would, in
the process, gain an advantage over him, financially and professionally, is not
backed up by normal experience. The adversary would then be able to receive his
salary without any stain or blot on his record of service. He has not persuaded
the Court that a person would embark upon such a nefarious scheme merely to
favor an enemy or adversary.
What aggravates the culpability of the
respondent is the undeniable fact that he did not file beforehand his
Application for Leave corresponding to the period of his subject absences. His
application for leave was only filed on June 1, 1999, after his questioned
absences were being investigated and inquired into. It is thus obvious that
respondent had planned his said absences without any intention of indicating
the same in his DTR. Respondent could not have accomplished such a
reprehensible objective without the collusion and indispensable participation
of the person who actually swiped the ID of respondent in the chronolog machine,
to make sure that the respondent would be reflected as present, and would
receive his regular salary during the period of his absences. Obviously, such a
misrepresentation could not have been resorted to without the conformity or
request of the respondent himself.
Considering that the malfeasance complained
of is respondent’s first, the Court is of the sense that the recommended
penalty therefor of one (1) month suspension without pay should suffice.
WHEREFORE, respondent Ricardo Baniel III is hereby found
GUILTY of the malfeasance charged against him and is accordingly sentenced to
two (2) months suspension without pay, with stern warning that a repetition of
the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Melo,
Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes,
Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon,
Jr., JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., no part due relationship to respondent.
Pardo, J., on official leave.