G.R. No. A.M. No. P-99-1285; October 4, 2000
Atty. Teresita Reyes-Domingo, complainant, vs. Miguel C. Morales, Branch Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 17, Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Teresita Reyes-Domingo, a Senior State Prosecutor, filed an administrative complaint against Branch Clerk of Court Miguel C. Morales for dishonesty and grave misconduct. The complaint alleged that on May 10 and 13, 1996, respondent was absent from his office—first, interfering with a construction project at Katarungan Village, and second, being at the DENR-NCR Office in Quezon City. These absences were not reflected in his Daily Time Record (DTR), nor did he file any leave of absence for those dates. In his comment, respondent initially denied the allegations but later admitted to being at the DENR on May 13. He argued the one-hour discrepancy in his DTR was “unsubstantial,” that he could have charged it to forced leave, and that Clerks of Court are not required to keep DTRs. He also filed a counter-complaint for disbarment against the complainant.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent guilty and recommended a fine. A supplemental complaint was later filed, presenting evidence, including a permit bearing respondent’s signature, which confirmed his presence at the DENR on May 13 and his prior knowledge of the tree-cutting activities at Katarungan Village. Respondent later sought to defer proceedings for a possible amicable settlement.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Miguel C. Morales is administratively liable for dishonesty and misconduct for being absent from work without filing the proper leave and for falsifying his Daily Time Record.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court emphasized that court personnel, including Clerks of Court, are bound by stringent standards of conduct and must observe prescribed office hours. Respondent’s admission of being at the DENR office, coupled with the documentary evidence from the supplemental complaint, conclusively established his unauthorized absences. His claim that Clerks of Court are not required to keep DTRs is erroneous; all court personnel must faithfully record their attendance as a fundamental duty of public service.
The Court rejected the proposal for an amicable settlement, stressing that administrative cases involve public interest and cannot be compromised by private agreements between parties. A public office is a public trust, and any act of dishonesty, such as falsifying an official document like a DTR, undermines the integrity of the judiciary. The act constitutes dishonesty and misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Considering it was his first offense, the Court imposed a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The counter-complaint for disbarment was referred to the proper office for separate action.