A.M. No. RTJ-14-2401

Ruling

accordingly be met with considerable, if not conclusive, favor under the rules of evidence because it is not expected that said witnesses would prevaricate and cause the damnation of one who brought them no harm or injury. Thus, respondent's bare denial vis-a-vis the positive testimonies of the witnesses, the latter should prevail. (Emphasis supplied) Here, the OCA team reported that they conducted the roll call of the court personnel before 5:00pm and found that the above court personnel already logged their time-out as 5:00pm. There was no reason for the OCA team to falsify its report. As such, petitioners' contention herein is bereft of merit. Specifically as to Derasmo, Pasag, and Mariano, it bears noting that, after examining the Attendance- Log Sheet of RTC Branch 6 for May 5, 2011, they, along with Peralta, Ferrer, Sacpa, Fagel, and Gonzales logged time-outs of 5:00pm or after. It is, therefore, tmbelievable that the OCA team would select the three court personnel at random and allege that they were no longer at the court when, in fact, they were. Respondents have not given any reason why the OCA team would do so. The same principle applies to Manipon, Eserio and Romero who argue that they were also present when the roll call was conducted by the OCA team. Again, it is illogical for the OCA team to make false allegations against them and yet say that the other court personnel of Branch 7, namely Fukai, Perez, Madayag and Pangan were present when the roll call was conducted. As the Court ruled in People v. Villaflores : [37] Well-entrenched is the rule that evidence should first be believable and logical before it can be accorded weight. To be given any credence, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness; it must be credible in itself as a common experience and observation that mankind can deem probable under the circumstances. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, unless the OCA team was motivated by some reason to distinguish respondents from the other personnel, the allegations cannot be given any credit. With regard to the penalty, Office of the Court Administrator v. Kasilag [38] is relevant: Jurisprudence on this matter is clear. Falsification of a DTR by a court personnel is a grave offense. The nature of this infraction is precisely what the OCA states: the act of falsifying an official document is in itself grave because of its possible deleterious effects on government service. At the same time, it is also an act of dishonesty, which violates fundamental principles of public accountability and integrity. Under Civil Service regulations, falsification of an official document and dishonesty are distinct offenses, but both may be committed in one act, as in this case. (Emphasis supplied) Section 46 (A) (6) of the RRACCS ptmishes Falsification of official documents with dismissal from the service: Section 46. Classification of Offenses . - Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less gra