THIRD DIVISION
|
Re: Report on the Irregularity in the
Use of Bundy Clock by Alberto Salamat, Sheriff IV, RTC-Br.80,
|
|
A.M. No.
P-08-2494 (Formerly
OCA IPI No. 06-2399-P) Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO,
J.:
Before this Court is an
administrative charge against Sheriff IV Alberto Salamat (respondent) of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Black Tiger Security Services, Inc.
(Black Tiger) provides security services by assigning security guards to the
Bulacan Halls of Justice. One of the
security guards of Black Tiger, Glicerio Magbanua (Magbanua), was assigned to
the lobby of the Bulacan Halls of Justice from
Thereafter, Magbanua reported the
matter to his superiors at Black Tiger.
The report was passed on from Deputy Detachment Commander Eduardo de
Guzman (DDC De Guzman) to Detachment Commander Lino Quitoriano (DC Quitoriano).
Finally, President/General Manager Dr. Celso B. Songcuya, Jr. (Dr. Songcuya)
and Executive Vice President/Managing Director Rolando G. Macaoay (EVP/MD
Macaoay) sent their
letter-report dated
On
In his Comment[5]
dated
On
Investigation
of the aforementioned administrative matter ensued.
On
On
19 February 2007, the Third Division of this Court issued a Resolution[10]
resolving, inter alia, to require respondent to submit his Comment on
the charge that he punched in the daily time cards of his co-employees on 22
April 2005; and Judge Pasamba to undertake another investigation, report, and
recommendation on this matter.
In
his Comment[11] dated 9
April 2007, respondent argued that no irregular punching in of time cards
occurred on 22 April 2005, and if it so happened, then the
Bi-Monthly/Semi-Monthly Report of Black Tiger covering the period of 16 to 30
April 2005 should have reflected an entry on the same. Respondent concludes that the Black Tiger
officers and personnel must have doctored, falsified, or irregularly inserted
an entry in their logbook to support their belated claim that the correct and
actual date of his commission of the offense charged took place on
The
administrative matter was again set for hearing by Judge Pasamba.
Subsequently, on
“DISCUSSION
Respondent sheriff IV has been
placed twice under investigation on the irregularity in the use of the bundy
clock. The first administrative matter
under AM No. 05-7-416 RTC was resolved on
RECOMMENDATION
Given the foregoing, there is the likelihood that respondent Alberto Salamat [Sheriff IV] committed the complained irregularity. A strong admonition, as a sanction, is meted upon respondent with a stern warning that a repetition of a similar act will call for a more severe disciplinary action.
On
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the undersigned respectfully recommend (sic) that:
1. the instant administrative case be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;
2. respondent Alberto Salamat, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 80, Malolos City be found GUILTY of Dishonesty for his act of punching in the time cards of his co-employees; and
3. the said respondent be meted the penalty of DISMISSAL with forfeiture of all his retirement benefits, except his accrued leave credits, and with perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government agency, including government owned and controlled corporation.[13]
On
After a thorough review of the
records of this case, the Court agrees in the finding of the OCA that
respondent is guilty of dishonesty, but diverges from the recommended penalty.
This
Court held in Office of the Court
Administrator v. Judge Bautista,[16]
citing Mamba v. Garcia,[17]
that in administrative proceedings, only substantial
evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conviction, is
required. In the case at bar,
substantial evidence exists to hold respondent liable for the offense charged,
particularly: (1) Black Tiger Security Guard Magbanua’s testimony; (2) the
Information Report filed by DCC De Guzman to his superiors at Black Tiger; (3)
the letter report[18]
dated 18 May 2005 of Black Tiger President/GM Dr. Songcuya and EVP/MD Macaoay to Atty. Javier charging respondent with
punching in the daily time cards for his co-employees.
On the other hand, respondent merely
denies the allegations against him. Instead, he alleges that it would be
illogical and unlikely for him to punch in the daily time cards of his
co-employees on 5 May 2005 since some of them arrived at the office much
earlier than he; and the Black Tiger officers and personnel merely doctored,
falsified, or irregularly inserted an entry in their logbook to make it appear
that he committed the offense charged not on 5 May 2005, but on 22 April 2005.
It is settled that denial is inherently a weak
defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of
non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving and is with nil
evidentiary value. Like the defense of alibi, a denial crumbles in the
light of positive declarations.[19]
Respondent undeniably failed to
substantiate the allegations in his comment.
He could have submitted evidence to substantiate his allegations, other
than his mere denials, but respondent failed to submit any supporting proof. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not
evidence and is not equivalent to proof.[20]
As to the alleged discrepancy on the
date the incident happened, the Court notes that this was already clarified by
Black Tiger DC Quitoriano, who admitted that he inadvertently and honestly
committed the mistake by stating the date 5 May 2005 in his Information Report,
since he prepared the report already late at night.[21] The wrong date was eventually corrected[22] by
changing it to
Respondent’s assertion that the Black
Tiger officers and personnel only doctored, falsified, or irregularly inserted
an entry on the incident in their logbook deserves scant consideration. It is purely speculation on his part. As pointed out by Judge Pasamba in her
There being substantive proof that
respondent punched in the daily time cards for his co-employees on 22 April
2007, the Court finds respondent’s actuations to be in violation of OCA
Circular No. 7-2003, which reads in part that:
In the submission of Certificates of Service and Daily Time Records (DTRs)/Bundy Cards by Judges and court personnel, the following guidelines shall be observed:
1. After the end of each month, every official and employee of each court shall accomplish the Daily Time Record (Civil Service Form No. 48)/Bundy Card, indicating therein truthfully and accurately the time of arrival in and departure from the office x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
The foregoing Circular clearly
provides that every court official and employee must truthfully and accurately
indicate the time of his or her arrival at and departure from the office.
Equally important is the fact that this Court has already held that the punching in of one's daily time record is a
personal act of the holder. It cannot and should not be delegated to
anyone else. This is mandated by the word “every” in the above-quoted circular.[23]
Respondent's
act of punching in another employee's daily time card falls within the ambit of
falsification. Worse, he did not do it
for only one co-employee, but for at least five others. He made it appear as though his co-employees
personally punched in their respective daily time cards and, at the same time,
made the card reflect a log-in time different from their actual times of
arrival. It is patent dishonesty,
reflective of respondent’s fitness as an employee to continue in office and of the
level of discipline and morale in the service.[24] Falsification of daily time records is an act
of dishonesty. For this, respondent must
be held administratively liable. Rule
XVII, Section 4 of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations (Civil
Service Rules) provides:
Section 4. Falsification or irregularities in the keeping of time records will render the guilty officer or employee administratively liable x x x.
The
Court has repeatedly emphasized that everyone in the judiciary, from the
presiding judge to the clerk, must always be beyond reproach and must be
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them free of
any suspicion that may taint the judiciary.[25] Public service requires utmost integrity and
discipline. A public servant must
exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity, for no less
than the Constitution mandates the principle that "a public office is a
public trust and all public officers and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty and efficiency.”[26] As the administration of justice is a sacred
task, the persons involved in it ought to live up to the strictest standard of
honesty and integrity.[27] Their conduct, at all times, must not only be
characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be above
suspicion. Thus, every employee of the judiciary should be an example of
integrity, uprightness and honesty.[28]
Respondent,
by his actions, violated his sacred trust as a public servant and judicial
officer. Indeed, dishonesty is a
malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary.[29]
This Court has defined dishonesty as the "(d)isposition to lie, cheat, deceive,
or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or
integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition
to defraud, deceive or betray.”[30]
Under
Rule XIV, Section 21 of the Civil Service Rules, falsification of official
documents (such as daily time records) and dishonesty are both grave
offenses. As such, they carry the
penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits,
except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment
in government service.[31]
However,
there have been several other administrative cases[32]
involving dishonesty, in which the Court meted out a penalty lower than
dismissal. In these cases, mitigating
circumstances existed which merited the leniency of the Court.
In Re: Ting and Esmerio, the Court did not impose the severe penalty
of dismissal on the basis of the acknowledgment by respondents therein of their
infractions, and also their remorse and long years of service. The Court
imposed, instead, the penalty of suspension for six months on Ting; and the
penalty of forfeiture of six months’ salary on Esmerio, on account of the
latter’s retirement.
In
Re: Failure of Jose Dante E. Guerrero to
Register His Time In and Out in Chronolog Time Recorder Machine [for] Several
Times,[33] the
Court imposed the penalty of six-month suspension on Guerrero, who was found
guilty of dishonesty for falsifying his time record. The Court considers as
mitigating circumstances Guererro’s good performance rating, his 13 years of
satisfactory service in the judiciary, and his acknowledgment of and remorse
for his infractions.
The
compassion extended by the Court in these cases was not without legal basis.
Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service,[34] grants
the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances
in the imposition of the proper penalty.
In
the case at bar, respondent was previously charged with grave misconduct,
dishonesty, and acts prejudicial to the interest of the service, as a result of
which he was suspended for one month.[35] Three other cases[36]
against him were dismissed. This is the
second administrative case against him given due course in his 18 years in
government service. With the foregoing pronouncements, the Court deems it
proper to impose a suspension of ten months.
The
Court, though, could not rule on the supposed culpability of respondent’s
co-employees whose time cards he punched in, as Judge Pasamba, the
investigating judge, failed to make any factual findings thereon.
WHEREFORE, Alberto Salamat is found GUILTY of dishonesty and is hereby SUSPENDED for TEN (10) MONTHS,
effective immediately, with a stern WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more
severely.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T.
REYES
Associate Justice
[1] TSN,
[2] TSN,
[3] TSN,
[4] Rollo, p. 8.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Now deceased.
[9] Rollo, pp. 35-38.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] 456 Phil. 193, 207 (2003).
[17] 412 Phil. 1, 10 (2001).
[18] Rollo, p. 3.
[19] Jugueta
v. Estacio, A.M. No. CA-04-17-P,
[20] Navarro
v. Cerezo, A.M. No. P-05-1962,
[21] TSN,
[22] Rollo, ; Annex A.
[23] In
Re: Irregularities in the Use of Logbook and Daily Time Records by Clerk of
Court Raquel D. J. Razon, Cash Clerk Joel M. Magtuloy and Utility Worker
Tiburcio O. Morales, MTC-OCC, Guagua, Pampanga, A.M. No. P-06-2243,
[24] Alabastro v. Moncada, Sr., A.M. No. P-04-1887,
[25] Dipolog
v. Montealto, A.M. No. P-04-190,
[26] Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution.
[27] Hernandez v. Borja, 312 Phil. 199, 204 (1995).
[28] Basco v. Gregorio, 315 Phil. 681, 688 (1995).
[29] Office of the Court Administrator v. Magno, 419 Phil. 593, 602 (2001); Sec. 22(a), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 ( Administrative Code of 1987), as amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999(a).
[30] Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Sec. I & Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Off. Clerk of Court, A.M. No. 2001-7-SC & No. 2001-8-SC, 22 July 2005, 464 SCRA 1, 15.
[31] Office of the Court Administrator v. Magno, supra note 29; Sec. 22(a), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), as amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999(a).
[32] Concerned Employee v. Valentin, A.M. No. 2005-01-SC, 8 June 2005, 459 SCRA 307, 311; Dipolog v. Montealto, A.M. No. P-04-190, 23 November 2004, 443 SCRA 465, 478; Re: Alleged Tampering of the Daily Time Records (DTR) of Sherry B. Cervantes, Court Stenographer III, Branch 18, Regional Trial Court, Manila, A.M. No. 03-8-463-RTC, 20 May 2004, 428 SCRA 572, 576; Office of the Court Administrator v. Sirios, 457 Phil. 42, 48-49 (2003); Atty. Reyes-Domingo v. Morales, 396 Phil. 150, 164 (2000).
[33] A.M. No. 2005-07-SC,
[34] CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19-99,
[35] Pan
v. Salamat, A.M. No. P-03-1678,
[36] A.M. OCA IPI No. 01-1239-P (Sarmiento v. Salamat) - for abuse of
authority-dismissed on