G.R. No. A.M. No. P-13-3130, September 22, 2014
Office of the Court Administrator, Petitioner, vs. May F. Hernandez, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 199, Las Piñas City, Respondent.

FACTS

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received an anonymous letter alleging that respondent May F. Hernandez, Clerk III of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 199, Las Piñas City, had been habitually arriving late for work for over a year. To conceal her tardiness, she would insert her name in the court’s attendance logbook just above or nearly on the same line as the series of “X” marks, which served as the dividing line between employees who arrived on time and those who were tardy. This conduct reportedly affected the morale of other court employees. The OCA referred the matter to Executive Judge Elizabeth Yu Guray for discreet investigation. Initially, Judge Guray issued a resolution reprimanding respondent, but the OCA deemed this insufficient and directed a more thorough investigation. In her subsequent report, Judge Guray found that respondent may be held liable for dishonesty, noting that a prior anonymous complaint had been referred to Presiding Judge Joselito DJ Vibandor, to which respondent submitted a letter-explanation dated November 17, 2010. In that letter, respondent cited personal struggles, including stress from her marriage annulment and serious health issues, as reasons for her actions. The OCA then required respondent to comment on the report. In her Comment dated July 25, 2011, respondent admitted to tampering with the attendance logbook for the months of September and October 2010 to make it appear she was not tardy. The OCA found that her actions violated OCA Circular No. 2-2003, which mandates truthful and accurate recording of daily time records (DTRs), and constituted falsification of an official document—a grave offense under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, punishable by dismissal. However, the OCA recommended a penalty of six months suspension without pay, considering mitigating circumstances.

ISSUE

Whether respondent May F. Hernandez is administratively liable for dishonesty due to falsifying her attendance records in the court’s logbook and daily time records.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of dishonesty. The Court affirmed the OCA’s finding that respondent’s admission of tampering with the attendance logbook—by inserting her name above the “X” marks to falsely indicate punctuality—constituted dishonesty. This act violated OCA Circular No. 2-2003 and amounted to falsification of an official document (her DTR), a grave offense under Section 46, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which normally warrants dismissal. However, the Court considered mitigating circumstances: respondent readily admitted her wrongdoing, expressed remorse, and explained that she was undergoing severe personal difficulties, including marital problems and illness (bronchopneumonia), which affected her conduct. Citing precedents such as Office of the Court Administrator v. Magbanua and *Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Gutierrez III*, where leniency was shown for similar offenses due to mitigating factors, the Court imposed a reduced penalty. Given that respondent falsified records for two months, a heavier penalty than in those cases was deemed appropriate. Thus, the Court suspended respondent for six months without pay, with a stern warning that repetition of similar acts would result in more severe consequences.