A.M. No. P-07-2401; November 28, 2007
Clerk of Court Maricris Gillamac-Ortiz, Complainant, vs. Sheriff Archimedes D. Almeida, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a memorandum issued by Clerk of Court Maricris Gillamac-Ortiz of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 54, Navotas, against Deputy Sheriff Archimedes Almeida, Jr. The respondent was found to have been absent on several dates in February and March 2007. However, entries in the office attendance logbook for those dates indicated his time of arrival and departure, making it appear he was present. The daily attendance sheet, certified by the complainant and prepared by the timekeeper, confirmed his absences.
In his comment, respondent admitted the absences but explained he was undergoing medical treatment for hypertension, diabetes, and pneumonia. He claimed that when instructed to prepare his Daily Time Record for February while still feeling ill and dizzy, he made entries in the logbook without accurately recalling his attendance dates. He expressed remorse, sought forgiveness from his superiors, and promised not to repeat the act.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Archimedes D. Almeida, Jr. is administratively liable for dishonesty due to falsifying his attendance records.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable for dishonesty. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). It is settled that respondent was absent on the specified dates, a fact he admitted and which was reflected in the official Daily Report on Absences and Tardiness. By making entries in the logbook to falsely indicate his presence, he engaged in a deliberate act to conceal his absenteeism. Such tampering with official records constitutes dishonesty, defined as a disposition to deceive, defraud, or betray, and demonstrates a lack of integrity. Dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal.
However, the Court imposed the mitigated penalty of reprimand with a stern warning. Mitigating circumstances warranted leniency: respondent’s 32 years of service in the judiciary, his acknowledgment of his infractions and expression of remorse, his physical and psychological condition requiring medical treatment, and the fact that his correct absences were still properly reflected in the certified daily report and his final Daily Time Record. The penalty is consistent with rules imposing reprimand for violation of reasonable office regulations. A repetition will be dealt with more severely.