GR 168309; (January, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168309 ; January 29, 2008
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs. MARIAN D. TORRES and MARICAR D. TORRES, respondents.
FACTS
This case originated from an administrative complaint for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Falsification of Official Document filed against respondents Maricar D. Torres and Marian D. Torres, who were employed as Legislative Staff Assistant and Messenger, respectively, for the Sangguniang Bayan of Malabon. The complaint alleged that during their employment, both respondents were enrolled as full-time regular college students. Despite this, they submitted Daily Time Records (DTRs) indicating they reported for work daily from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., thereby collecting their salaries.
The Office of the Ombudsman found the respondents administratively guilty of Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document. While the Graft Investigation Officer recommended dismissal, the Ombudsman tempered the penalty to a one-year suspension without pay. The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in absolving the respondents of administrative liability for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document despite their admission of being full-time students while submitting DTRs claiming full-time government work.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Ombudsman’s finding of administrative liability. The Court held that the CA committed a reversible error in overturning the Ombudsman’s factual conclusions and legal assessment. The respondents, as government employees, had a strict obligation to truthfully report their attendance. By certifying in their DTRs that they rendered full-day service on days they were presumably attending classes as full-time students, they knowingly made untruthful statements in an official document. This act constitutes falsification, which is a form of dishonesty.
The Court rejected the CA’s reasoning that the false entries were made without malice because the respondents were confidential employees of their father and could render intermittent service. The nature of their appointments did not excuse them from the fundamental duty of honesty in recording their attendance. The submission of falsified DTRs perverts the very purpose of the document, which is to ensure the principle of “no work, no pay” and prevent damage to the government. Their act caused prejudice to the government, which paid salaries for services not fully rendered. Consequently, the Supreme Court found the respondents guilty of Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document and imposed the penalty of one-year suspension without pay as modified by the Ombudsman.