AM 94 1071; (March, 1996) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-94-1071. March 28, 1996. ELIZABETH ASUNBRADO, complainant, vs. FRANCISCO R. MACUNO, JR., Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Agusan del Sur, Branch 7, respondent.
FACTS:
Elizabeth Asunbrado filed a letter-complaint charging Sheriff Francisco R. Macuno, Jr. with dishonesty for falsifying his Daily Time Record (DTR) for December 1992. The complaint alleged he made it appear he was present or serving court processes on December 9, 21, 22, and 23, when he was actually absent. Respondent denied the allegations, asserting he reported for work on those dates as certified by his immediate supervisor, Judge Zenaida P. Placer.
The case was referred to Executive Judge Evangeline S. Yuipco for investigation. Judge Yuipco found that respondent’s signature was absent from the official attendance logbook for the specified dates, and he failed to rebut a certification from a court clerk confirming his absence. The report concluded that respondent committed falsification, constituting grave misconduct, gross dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, despite the DTR’s approval by Judge Placer. The investigating judge deferred the penalty recommendation, noting respondent was about to retire.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Francisco R. Macuno, Jr. should be administratively penalized for falsifying his Daily Time Record, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty considering the circumstances.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the investigation, ruling that the act of falsifying an official document like a DTR constitutes grave misconduct and gross dishonesty. Such acts violate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust and severely undermine the integrity of the judiciary. The normal and stringent policy for such offenses is dismissal from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and disqualification from reemployment.
However, the Court, in the exercise of its disciplinary discretion, deviated from the maximum penalty. It considered significant mitigating circumstances: this was respondent’s first and single infraction in an otherwise unblemished 33-year career in public service, and he was on the verge of retirement. The Court deemed outright dismissal with total forfeiture as too harsh and inhumane under these specific facts, as it would leave him with no means of support. Balancing the need to uphold judicial integrity with fairness and compassion, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as a more realistic and appropriate administrative sanction.