A.M. No. RTJ-11-2287. January 22, 2014. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. HON. CADER P. INDAR, AL HAJ, PRESIDING JUDGE and ABDULRAHMAN D. PIANG, PROCESS SERVER, BRANCH 14, both of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 14, COTABATO CITY, Respondents.
FACTS

Process Server Abdulrahman D. Piang was appointed on January 25, 2010, and assumed office on February 15, 2010. To facilitate his initial salary, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required him to submit, among other documents, his verified Daily Time Records (DTRs). On February 22, 2010, Piang submitted his DTRs. The DTR for February 2010 contained entries for dates beyond the submission date, up to February 26. More anomalously, the DTR for March 2010 already had complete time entries for the entire month, which had not yet transpired. Piang explained this was an honest mistake due to his lack of familiarity with office policies and his excitement to perform his duties, claiming no fraudulent intent.
Presiding Judge Cader P. Indar signed these anomalous DTRs. When required by the OCA to comment on his approval of the premature DTRs, Judge Indar repeatedly failed to comply with the Court’s directives, submitting his comment only on October 7, 2013, without explaining the delay. The OCA found Piang liable for dishonesty and recommended a one-year suspension. For Judge Indar, the OCA found gross misconduct and insubordination.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Abdulrahman D. Piang and Judge Cader P. Indar are administratively liable for their respective actions concerning the falsified Daily Time Records and the failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. For Process Server Piang, the Court found him guilty of dishonesty. The act of preparing and submitting DTRs with entries for future dates constitutes falsification of an official document, which is a form of dishonesty. While the Court considered his plea for leniency, acknowledgment of the infraction, and lack of prior offense as mitigating, his claim of good faith and lack of knowledge was untenable. The directive to submit a DTR was clear, and his actions demonstrated a disregard for truthfulness in official records. However, modifying the OCA’s recommendation, the Court imposed a six-month suspension without pay, with a stern warning.
For former Judge Indar, the Court found him guilty of gross misconduct, insubordination, and negligence. His act of signing the falsified DTRs without verification was grossly negligent and constituted misconduct, as it facilitated the dishonesty. His repeated failure to comply with the Court’s lawful orders to comment, without any explanation until the very late submission, demonstrated disrespect for judicial authority and constituted insubordination. His record of previous administrative sanctions was considered an aggravating circumstance. Since Judge Indar had already been dismissed from service in a separate case, the Court imposed a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (₱40,000.00), to be deducted from the monetary value of his unclaimed leave credits.