AM P 08 2494; (November, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-08-2494
Date: November 27, 2008
Case Parties: Re: Report on the Irregularity in the Use of Bundy Clock by Alberto Salamat, Sheriff IV, RTC-Br.80, Malolos City
FACTS
Alberto Salamat, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Branch 80, was administratively charged for punching in the daily time cards of his co-employees. The incident was witnessed on April 22, 2005, by security guard Glicerio Magbanua of Black Tiger Security Services, Inc., who saw respondent punch more than five daily time cards at around 7:40 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. Magbanua initially reminded respondent about the prohibition but was ignored. He recorded the incident in the logbook and reported it to his superiors. The security agency’s officers subsequently submitted a letter-report dated May 18, 2005, to the court administration, but erroneously stated the date of the incident as May 5, 2005. After investigation by Vice Executive Judge Herminia V. Pasamba, it was established that the correct date was April 22, 2005. Respondent denied the allegations, claiming it would be illogical for him to punch others’ cards as some co-employees arrived earlier, and alleged that the security guards doctored their logbook. Judge Pasamba found the security personnel’s testimonies credible and recommended a strong admonition. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concurred with the factual findings but recommended the penalty of dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sheriff Alberto Salamat is administratively liable for dishonesty for punching the daily time cards of his co-employees.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of dishonesty. The Supreme Court found substantial evidence to support the charge, consisting of the eyewitness testimony of security guard Magbanua, the Information Report from the security agency, and the letter-report from the agency’s officers. Respondent’s defense of mere denial, unsupported by evidence, is inherently weak and cannot prevail over positive testimonies. The discrepancy in the date of the incident was sufficiently explained as an honest mistake in the preparation of the report. The act of punching another’s time card constitutes dishonesty, as it is a falsification of an official document intended to mislead. Considering respondent’s position as a sheriff, an officer involved in the administration of justice who must uphold the highest standards of integrity, and noting his previous administrative infractions (though dismissed), the Court modified the recommended penalty. Instead of dismissal, the Court imposed a FINE of P20,000.00 with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.