A.M. No. P-02-1650. April 3, 2003
ZENAIDA REYES-MACABEO, Clerk of Court, MeTC, Branch 26, Manila, complainant, vs. FLORITO EDUARDO V. VALLE, Clerk III, MeTC, Branch 26, Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Zenaida Reyes-Macabeo, the Clerk of Court of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila, Branch 26, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Florito Eduardo V. Valle, a Clerk III in the same court. The charges included habitual tardiness, absenteeism, and the falsification of entries in the official attendance logbook. The complainant alleged that on multiple specified dates, the respondent altered his recorded time of arrival to conceal his late reporting for duty. Despite previous warnings, the respondent reportedly continued this pattern of misconduct.
In his Comment, the respondent candidly admitted to all the charges leveled against him. He attributed his infractions to being beset by domestic problems at the time. While asserting that he still endeavored to perform his assigned tasks, he offered apologies to the Presiding Judge and his colleagues and gave assurances that such mistakes would not be repeated.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Florito Eduardo V. Valle is administratively liable for the charges of habitual tardiness, absenteeism, and falsification of official records, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The records, which the respondent did not contest, clearly showed a pattern of falsifying logbook entries on numerous dates from August to October 2001, changing late arrival times to reflect punctual attendance. This constituted frequent unauthorized tardiness and absenteeism.
Under pertinent civil service rules and jurisprudence, habitual absenteeism and tardiness are grave offenses. Memorandum Circular No. 4, s. 1991, defines habitual absenteeism, while Section 15, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing E.O. No. 292 defines habitual tardiness. More critically, Administrative Circular No. 2-99 mandates that any falsification of daily time records to conceal absenteeism or tardiness constitutes gross dishonesty or serious misconduct. The Court has consistently held that court personnel must adhere to the highest standards of public service, as public office is a public trust. Such acts undermine judicial efficiency and integrity.
The gravity of the offenses, particularly the element of falsification, would typically warrant the severe penalty of dismissal. However, the Court, in the exercise of its disciplinary authority tempered with mercy, considered mitigating factors. These included the respondent’s forthright admission of guilt, his expression of remorse, his promise to reform, and the humanitarian consideration of his cited domestic problems. Consequently, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension for one (1) year without pay, as recommended by the OCA, instead of dismissal. A stern warning was appended that a repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.