G.R. No. P-96-1177. January 30, 1996.
JUDGE SALVADOR D. SILERIO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, LEGASPI CITY, PETITIONER, VS. IGNACIO B. BALASULLA, PROCESS SERVER, AND JOSE BLANCA, DEPUTY SHERIFF, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, LEGASPI CITY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This administrative case stemmed from the disappearance of the attendance logbook of the court personnel of RTC, Branch 8, Legaspi City, on December 31, 1994. Upon investigation by Presiding Judge Salvador D. Silerio on January 11, 1995, Process Server Ignacio Balasulla promptly admitted to hiding the logbook and immediately produced it. In an affidavit, Balasulla claimed he acted upon the instruction of Deputy Sheriff Jose Blanca during a lunch with co-employees where the idea to hide the logbook was conceived.
The case was referred to Executive Judge Rafael P. Santelices for investigation. During this investigation, Balasulla executed a new affidavit, retracting his earlier statement and assuming sole responsibility for the concealment, purportedly to “buy peace” and prevent involving others. Respondent Blanca denied any participation, supported by a joint affidavit from two co-employees. Executive Judge Santelices recommended a one-month suspension for Balasulla and dismissal of the case against Blanca for insufficient evidence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Ignacio B. Balasulla is administratively liable for the unauthorized taking and concealment of the court’s attendance logbook.

RULING

Yes, respondent Balasulla is administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized that court employees are strictly prohibited from taking or concealing any court record, paper, or document without proper authority. The attendance logbook, being an official record maintained pursuant to Civil Service rules, is considered a court record. Balasulla’s act of hiding it without permission constitutes misconduct in office, a breach of the public trust and the duty of court personnel to safeguard the integrity and correctness of court records.
The Court found Balasulla guilty of simple misconduct. While it disapproved of his actions, it considered mitigating circumstances: his prompt admission of guilt before Judge Silerio, which led to the immediate recovery of the logbook and averted a prolonged investigation, and the fact that this was his first administrative offense. Consequently, the Court reduced the recommended penalty from one month to a fifteen-day suspension without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The complaint against Jose Blanca was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. The Court also directed Judge Silerio to submit the relevant attendance logbooks and report on the submission of daily time records and leaves by his personnel to the Office of the Court Administrator for further review.