AM P 11 2951; (February, 2012) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-11-2951, February 15, 2012
Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Leoncio K. Gutierrez III, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 116, Pasay City, Respondent.
FACTS
The administrative complaint arose from the discovery of falsified entries in respondent Leoncio K. Gutierrez III’s Daily Time Record (DTR) for February 26, 2010. The Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 116, Pasay City, reported that Gutierrez’s DTR indicated he worked on that date, despite his own admission that he was absent. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated and found that Gutierrez had not filed any application for leave for that day. When required to explain, Gutierrez denied personally punching his DTR on February 26 and claimed he did not know who was responsible. He later filed a belated leave application, but only after the discrepancy had already been reported by the judge.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Leoncio K. Gutierrez III is administratively liable for dishonesty due to the falsification of his Daily Time Record.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is guilty of dishonesty. The Court emphasized that a public servant’s DTR is an official document, and making false entries constitutes dishonesty and falsification. The legal logic rests on evidentiary presumptions and the respondent’s failure to meet his burden of proof. Under Rule 131, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, the burden of proof lies with the party making an allegation. Gutierrez offered only a bare denial that he punched the DTR, without presenting any evidence to support his claim that another person could have accessed and falsified it. The Court found this defense insufficient to overcome the reasonable presumption that he was responsible for the entries in his own time record.
Furthermore, the respondent’s actions after the discovery were indicative of guilt. He signed the falsified DTR without correcting the erroneous entry for February 26, unlike other dates where he properly indicated his leave. His application for leave was filed belatedly, only after being confronted, which the Court deemed an afterthought to cover up the infraction. While the Court considered mitigating factors such as his immediate admission of absence and his clean record in five years of service, these did not exonerate him. The recommended penalty of a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00) was deemed appropriate, with a stern warning against repetition. The decision underscores that dishonesty, being a malevolent act indicating a lack of integrity, is intolerable in the judiciary.