Cited Laws
Accordingly, it recommended that respondent be given a penalty of suspension for two months. We disagree with the finding of the OCA that respondent's act was merely simple misconduct. OCA Circular No. 7-2003 [6] states that: In the submission of Certificates of Service and Daily Time Records (DTRs)/Bundy Cards by Judges and court personnel, the following guidelines shall be observed: After the end of each month, every official and employee of each court shall accomplish the Daily Time Record (Civil Service Form No. 48)/Bundy Card, indicating therein truthfully and accurately the time of arrival in and departure from the office xxx . (emphasis supplied) The said circular clearly provides that every court official and employee must truthfully and accurately indicate the time of his or her arrival at and departure from the office. Equally important is the fact that this Court has already held that the punching of one's daily time record is a personal act of the holder. It cannot and should not be delegated to anyone else. This is mandated by the word every in the above-quoted circular. [7] Respondent's act of punching another employee's time card falls within the ambit of falsification. She made it appear as though it was Reyes himself who punched his own card and, at the same time, made the card reflect a log-out time different from the actual time of departure. For this, respondent must be held administratively liable. Rule XVII, Section 4 of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations (Civil Service Rules) provides: Section 4. Falsification or irregularities in the keeping of time records will render the guilty officer or employee administratively liable xxx. Falsification of daily time records is also an act of dishonesty. Under Rule XIV, Section 21 of the Civil Service Rules, falsification of official documents and dishonesty are both grave offenses. As such, they carry the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in government service. [8] To temper the harshness of the rules, this Court has refrained from imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal in a number of cases. [9] The presence of such factors as length of service in the judiciary, acknowledgment of infractions and feeling of remorse and family circumstances, among other things, have had a mitigating effect in the imposition of penalties on erring court officials and personnel. However, we see no reason for leniency in the instant case as respondent did not even express any remorse for what she did and instead offered all sorts of excuses to justify the same. Furthermore, falsification of an official document is punishable as a criminal offense under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. We cannot tolerate the commission of a criminal act. We have stated over and over again that: [c]ourt employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, being public servants