The Supreme Court has affirmed that falsification of daily time records is a grave offense, specifically gross dishonesty, warranting dismissal from public service, underscoring the high standard of integrity required of judiciary employees. This ruling reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust and any act of dishonesty, no matter how seemingly minor, erodes public confidence in the judiciary. It serves as a stern warning to all public servants regarding the serious consequences of even minor acts of dishonesty.

Time Sheet Tampering: Can a Little White Lie Cost You Your Job?

This case revolves around Mr. Efren Ascrate, a Court Stenographer I detailed with the SC Library Services, and the allegations against him of violating Civil Service Rules concerning absenteeism and tardiness. The allegations stemmed from a report by Mrs. Milagros Santos-Ong, Chief of the Supreme Court Library Services, citing discrepancies between Ascrate’s entries in the library logbook and the computer printout of his Daily Time Record (DTR). Ascrate was accused of signing the logbook without swiping his ID, making inconsistent entries in the logbook, and frequent absenteeism. The core legal question is whether these actions constitute dishonesty serious enough to warrant dismissal from service.

The investigation revealed that Ascrate failed to swipe his ID on several occasions, offering the excuse that he had forgotten it at home. However, the discrepancies between the logbook entries and the computer records painted a clearer picture. For example, on January 8, 2004, Ascrate recorded his arrival time as 8:10 A.M. in the logbook, while the computer printout showed his actual arrival time as 9:15 A.M. Similarly, on March 11, 2004, he indicated his presence in the logbook, but the records showed he was absent that day. The Office of Administrative Services (OAS) concluded that Ascrate’s actions constituted falsification of daily time records, a form of gross dishonesty.

The Court referred to Administrative Circular No. 2-99, which explicitly states that any falsification of daily time records to cover up absenteeism or tardiness constitutes gross dishonesty or serious misconduct. This underscored the gravity with which the Court views any attempt to deceive in matters of official record-keeping. Ascrate’s defense, that he simply forgot his ID, was deemed “flimsy,” especially since he did not have his supervisor countersign his logbook entry to verify his presence. Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that the motivation behind Ascrate’s actions was to conceal his tardiness and absence.

The Court further emphasized that every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty. The administration of justice is a sacred task, and those involved in it must adhere to the principle that public office is a public trust. The Court held that Ascrate’s acts fell short of these exacting standards, stating that dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary. Public servants must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity, as their conduct reflects on the entire judiciary.

Public service requires utmost integrity and strictest discipline. A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity. The administration of justice is a sacred task. By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, all those involved in it must faithfully adhere to, hold inviolate, and invigorate the principle solemnly enshrined in the 1987 Constitution that a public office is a public trust; and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.”

In its ruling, the Court distinguished between the established acts of dishonesty and the unsubstantiated claims of loafing during office hours. The Court agreed with the OAS’s assessment that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that Ascrate was frequently absent from his workstation during office hours. Since Mrs. Ong failed to adduce concrete proof to this claim, Ascrate was cleared of any wrongdoing relating to this charge.

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court found Ascrate guilty of dishonesty and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. In accordance with Section 22(a), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, dishonesty is classified as a grave offense that warrants dismissal even for the first offense. The Court emphasized that it could not overlook such a clear transgression of the law, particularly in the context of the judiciary where public trust is paramount. The ruling underscores that employees of the judiciary must be role models in upholding the principle that public office is a public trust, and any act that diminishes public faith in the judiciary cannot be countenanced.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Mr. Ascrate’s falsification of his daily time records constituted dishonesty serious enough to warrant dismissal from public service. The Court examined whether his actions violated Civil Service Rules and undermined public trust in the judiciary.
What specific acts did Mr. Ascrate commit that led to his dismissal?	Mr. Ascrate made untrue statements in the logbook regarding his arrival time on January 8, 2004, and falsely indicated his presence on March 11, 2004, when he was absent. These acts were considered falsification of daily time records and gross dishonesty.
What is the significance of Administrative Circular No. 2-99 in this case?	Administrative Circular No. 2-99 states that any falsification of daily time records to cover up absenteeism or tardiness constitutes gross dishonesty or serious misconduct. This circular provided the legal basis for considering Mr. Ascrate’s actions as a grave offense.
Why did the Court emphasize the importance of integrity in the judiciary?	The Court emphasized that every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty because the administration of justice is a sacred task. Public trust is paramount, and any act that diminishes public faith in the judiciary cannot be countenanced.
What penalty did Mr. Ascrate receive?	Mr. Ascrate was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any. He is also prejudiced from re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government.
What does it mean that Mr. Ascrate’s actions were considered a violation of public trust?	Public office is a public trust, meaning that public servants must act with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. By falsifying his time records, Mr. Ascrate violated this trust and failed to uphold the high standards of conduct expected of judiciary employees.
How did the Court address the allegation that Mr. Ascrate was loafing during office hours?	The Court agreed with the OAS that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that Mr. Ascrate was frequently absent from his workstation during office hours. He was cleared of wrongdoing regarding this charge.
What is the overall message of this case for public servants?	This case underscores the high standard of integrity required of public servants, particularly those in the judiciary. It serves as a stern warning about the serious consequences of dishonesty, even in seemingly minor matters, and reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case sends a strong message about the importance of integrity and honesty in public service, especially within the judiciary. It reaffirms that falsification of time records is a serious offense with severe consequences, emphasizing that public trust and confidence in the judiciary must be maintained at all costs. The ruling serves as a clear reminder that those who fail to meet these high standards will be held accountable.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RE: ALLEGED VIOLATION BY MR. EFREN ASCRATE OF CIVIL SERVICE RULES ON ABSENTEEISM AND TARDINESS, A.M. No. 2004-19-SC, November 04, 2004