A.M. No. 2004-19-SC

Ruling

Accordingly, it agrees in the conclusion that respondent Ascrate is guilty of falsification of daily time records amounting to gross dishonesty or serious misconduct. We, however, modify the recommended penalty to be imposed. The crux of the case is the dishonesty of respondent in not reflecting his absence and the correct time in the office logbook on two of the dates complained of. Under Section II of Administrative Circular No. 2-99 entitled Strict Observance of Working Hours and Disciplinary Action for Absenteeism and Tardiness, falsification of daily time records is considered gross dishonesty: Absenteeism and tardiness, even if such do not qualify as habitual or frequent under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1991, shall be dealt with severely, and any falsification of daily time records to cover-up for such absenteeism and/or tardiness shall constitute gross dishonesty or serious misconduct. [Emphasis supplied.] Given the foregoing provision, respondents act of reflecting an earlier time of arrival on 08 January 2004, when in truth he arrived an hour and five minutes later, and making it appear that he was present on 11 March 2004, when he was not, to cover up his tardiness and absence, respectively, denote separate acts of falsification of a daily time record, which, in this case, happens to be a logbook. Each act constitutes gross dishonesty or serious misconduct. The making of untrue statements on the logbook quite palpably illustrates a deliberate attempt to conceal or suppress his tardiness and absence on said dates. What other motivation could a person have for making such untruthful statements in a logbook other than to cover up said delinquencies? With respect to his tardiness, a disparity of one (1) hour and five (5) minutes from the signing of the logbook and the swiping of the ID on the Chronolog Time Recorder Machine is quite implausible considering that all the Chronolog Time Recorder Machines are located within the compound of this Court. As for his absence on the 11 th of March 2004, his explanation that he registered only in the logbook because he forgot his ID is, to use the words of the OAS, very flimsy . If, indeed, he was really present on that date, and that he only failed to swipe his ID in the machine because he left it at home, he should have had his supervisor, Ms. Lorna Ricolcol, countersign his logbook entry. At the very least, he should have informed her about it. Sad to say, for the most part, respondent merely apologized for violating Civil Service rules. Given the facts of the case and considering that respondent has been reprimanded [11] by this Court for being habitually tardy, any reasonable man will be able to deduce that respondents acts were done in order to hide his tardiness and absenteeism. As can be gleaned from his letters, respondent knew fully well that his acts of making false entries in the logbook are serious offenses. While not exactly admitting the ch