A.M. No. P-260 November 28, 1980
FLORENTINO R. CALAYAG, complainant, vs. RUFINO DE ASAS, respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Florentino R. Calayag, Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Northern Samar, filed an administrative complaint against Rufino de Asas, a binder-helper in the same court. The charges included falsification of official time records, violations of Civil Service rules, frequent unauthorized absences and loafing during office hours, discourtesy, and being notoriously undesirable. The respondent, in his comment, denied the charges in general terms and claimed he was being singled out while other employees committed similar infractions regarding attendance records.
The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Romulo S. Quimbo. During the investigation, the complainant presented extensive documentary evidence, primarily consisting of the respondent’s Civil Service Form 48 daily time records and corresponding logbook entries from 1973 to 1976. These exhibits demonstrated multiple instances where the respondent recorded incorrect times of arrival and departure, specifically falsifying entries to avoid deductions for tardiness or undertime. The respondent chose not to present any countervailing evidence and instead appealed for leniency, citing his long government service and proximity to retirement age.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Rufino de Asas is administratively liable for the acts charged, particularly for falsifying his daily time records.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the investigating judge. The evidence conclusively established that the respondent falsified his official daily time records (Civil Service Form 48) on numerous occasions over several years. By entering incorrect times of arrival and departure, he committed acts of dishonesty intended to conceal his tardiness and early departures from work. This constitutes falsification of an official document, a grave offense that undermines the integrity of the public service.
The Court rejected the respondent’s defense of being singled out, as the evidence against him was clear and uncontroverted by his failure to present any evidence. While the investigating judge noted the infraction was common and considered the respondent’s long service and near retirement in mitigation, the act remains reprehensible. The legal logic rests on the principle that public office is a public trust, and court personnel must adhere to the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Falsification of official records is a direct violation of this trust. However, considering the mitigating circumstances cited, the Court imposed the penalty of a fine equivalent to one month’s salary with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The dissenting opinion argued for a heavier penalty, noting the multiple falsifications constituted serious misconduct warranting a fine equivalent to six months’ salary.