G.R. No. P-04-1901. November 23, 2004.
Judge Teodoro L. Dipolog, complainant, vs. Clerk of Court II Darryl C. Montealto, et al., respondents.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a Memorandum dated July 4, 2000, issued by respondent Darryl C. Montealto, Clerk of Court II, addressing the failure of court personnel to accomplish Daily Time Records (DTRs) on time, alleged falsification thereof, and non-observance of office hours. The matter was investigated by Judge Teodoro L. Dipolog, who initially found the allegations unsupported by substantial evidence and noted that Montealto himself had certified the questionable DTRs as correct. Judge Dipolog recommended reprimands for all respondents for failing to maintain harmonious relationships.
Subsequently, the case was referred for further investigation to Executive Judge Ma. Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca. Her investigation revealed that respondents Fe O. Pao, Brillo B. Portacion, Phebe A. Velez, Cesario E. Alumbro, and Zaldy V. Pamatong had, over several years, repeatedly failed to fill out DTRs daily, observe office hours, and had accomplished monthly DTRs without indicating their absences. Judge Sitaca found that Montealto lacked the courage to discipline the erring employees, certified falsified DTRs, and only issued the memorandum after being compelled by a visiting judge.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents are administratively liable for neglect of duty and falsification of official documents.

RULING

Yes, the respondents are administratively liable. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Respondents Pao, Portacion, Velez, Alumbro, and Pamatong are guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and Falsification of Official Documents. Their habitual failure to record absences and observe office hours, coupled with the submission of DTRs that did not reflect their true attendance, constitutes dishonesty and gross neglect prejudicial to the court’s efficiency. The penalty for such offenses is severe, but considering their length of service and the OCA’s recommendation, they are suspended for six months and one day without pay.
Respondent Montealto is likewise guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty. As Clerk of Court, he was tasked with the precise duty of ensuring the accuracy of the DTRs before certifying them. By knowingly certifying falsified records and failing to exercise proper supervision, he became an accomplice to the dishonesty of his subordinates. His issuance of a memorandum, done only under pressure, does not exonerate him from his primary administrative responsibility. The complaint against respondent Pedro Rio G. Bation was dismissed for lack of merit.