A.M. No. P-08-2542 (Formerly A.M. No. 08-1-09-RTC) - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. CYRIL JOTIC, COURT INTERPRETER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 64, TARLAC CITY; AND JOSELITO R. ESPINOSA, PROCESS SERVER, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TARLAC CITY.DECISIO

Ruling

accordingly be meted with the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except leave credits, with perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government agency, including government-owned and controlled corporation, and with cancellation of civil service eligibility. That Process Server Joselito R. Espinosa be found GUILTY of DISHONESTY and accordingly be meted with the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except leave credits, with perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government agency, including government-owned and controlled corporation, and with cancellation of civil service eligibility. That Atty. Marilyn M. Martin, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Br. 64, be required to explain why no administrative disciplinary action should be taken against her for failing to closely supervise the personnel of RTC, Br. 64, Tarlac City. The Court agrees with the report of the OCA, except as to the penalty imposed. The issue in this administrative case boils down to whether or not respondents Cyril B. Jotic and Joselito R. Espinosa were dishonest in not reflecting the correct time in their attendance logbook on November 16, 2007. The act of making a false statement in the attendance logbook renders an employee liable for dishonesty and falsification. Any willful concealment of fact in the logbook constitutes mental dishonesty amounting to misconduct. Dishonesty refers to the: [d]isposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. [9] The respondent should be reminded that dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary. [10] A court employee, being a public servant, must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity. For everyone connected professionally with the judicial institution, the duty is imperative and sacred to build up its eminence as a true and revered temple of justice. [11] Republic Act 6713 - the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees - enunciates the State's policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. [12] And no other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an employee than the judiciary. [13] We have repeatedly emphasized that the conduct of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. The Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith