G.R. No. 161188 . June 12, 2008.
HON. MOISES M. PARDO, Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino, complainant, vs. LUGEORGE N. DISCIPULO, Electrician II, Maintenance Unit, Halls of Justice, Cabarroguis, Quirino, respondent.

FACTS

Executive Judge Moises M. Pardo filed a complaint for dishonesty against Lugeorge N. Discipulo, an electrician at the Halls of Justice. Judge Pardo alleged that on February 9 and 17, 2006, Discipulo arrived, punched his time card in the morning, but immediately left the premises and did not return for the rest of the workday, failing to punch out. Subsequently, on March 1, 2006, Discipulo borrowed the security guards’ logbook and, without permission, inserted “12:00” and “5:00” as his departure times for those dates. He made identical unauthorized entries on his official time card. The security guards certified to these acts.
In his defense, Discipulo filed a counter-complaint for gross misconduct against Judge Pardo, alleging various infractions including condoning drinking during office hours, allowing unauthorized absences, ordering the falsification of other employees’ time records, and harassment. Discipulo denied falsification, claiming he merely forgot to punch out and submitted affidavits from co-employees attesting to his presence on the dates in question.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether respondent Discipulo is administratively liable for dishonesty. A secondary issue is whether Judge Pardo is liable for gross misconduct based on the counter-complaint.

RULING

The Court found Discipulo guilty of dishonesty and dismissed the charges against Judge Pardo. On the charge of dishonesty, the Court upheld the findings of the investigating hearing officer. The evidence, particularly the certification of the security guards, convincingly established that Discipulo was absent on the concerned dates and subsequently fabricated his time records. His claim of merely correcting an oversight was rejected, as his unilateral alterations of the official logbook and time card, done without authorization and after the fact, constituted clear falsification intended to conceal his absences. Such act violates the fundamental requirement of truthfulness in recording attendance under OCA Circular No. 7-2003 and constitutes dishonesty, which erodes public trust in the judiciary.
Regarding the counter-complaint, the Court found Discipulo’s allegations against Judge Pardo unsubstantiated. Mere allegations, without convincing proof, cannot prevail. The burden of proof in administrative cases lies with the complainant, and Discipulo failed to present substantial evidence to corroborate his claims of gross misconduct. Consequently, the charge against Judge Pardo was dismissed for lack of merit. The Court suspended Discipulo from office for six months and one day with a stern warning.