In Office of the Ombudsman v. Torres, the Supreme Court addressed the serious issue of dishonesty and falsification of official documents by public employees. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, reinstating the Ombudsman’s finding that Marian and Maricar Torres were administratively liable for falsifying their Daily Time Records (DTRs). This ruling underscores the importance of truthfulness and integrity in public service, reinforcing the principle that public office is a public trust. It establishes that falsifying DTRs to collect salaries for work not rendered constitutes dishonesty, irrespective of whether the government suffered direct damage. This decision serves as a reminder that public employees are expected to be honest and accountable, and those who violate this trust will face consequences.

Conflicting Schedules, Compromised Integrity: Can Public Employees Falsify Records?

The case began with an administrative complaint filed against Edilberto Torres, Maricar D. Torres, and Marian D. Torres. The charges stemmed from allegations of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsification of official documents. Maricar and Marian, daughters of Edilberto, were employed as Legislative Staff Assistant and Messenger, respectively, in the Sangguniang Bayan of Malabon. During their employment, they were also full-time college students. They submitted DTRs indicating they worked full-time, leading to the collection of full salaries. However, their class schedules made it impossible for them to fulfill their claimed work hours.

The Office of the Ombudsman found Maricar and Marian administratively guilty of dishonesty and falsification of official documents. The Ombudsman initially recommended dismissal, but the penalty was later tempered to a one-year suspension without pay. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, finding no malice or deliberate intent in the false entries. The CA reasoned that the DTRs had served their purpose without causing damage to the government. The Office of the Ombudsman then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that only substantial evidence is needed to prove administrative culpability. It is not necessary to have overwhelming evidence, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In administrative cases, the standard of proof is lower. Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” The Court highlighted the established facts:

• Maricar and Marian were employed by the local government while simultaneously enrolled as full-time students.
• They submitted DTRs indicating full-time work attendance.
• They received full salaries based on these DTRs.

The Court noted that the CA had affirmed the factual finding that the respondents made false entries in their DTRs. Based on these facts, the Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman was correct in finding them administratively guilty of dishonesty and falsification of official documents. Dishonesty is defined as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness, lack of integrity. Falsification of an official document involves knowingly making false statements in official or public documents. Both are grave offenses under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, carrying the penalty of dismissal for the first offense.

The Supreme Court stated that falsification of DTRs amounts to dishonesty. The purpose of requiring time records is to show attendance and ensure proper payment. This adheres to the policy of no work-no pay, preventing loss to the government. The Court rejected the respondents’ claim of good faith, stating that they were fully aware that the entries in their DTRs were false. It was physically impossible for them to fulfill full-time work obligations while attending regular classes.

The Court cited PNB v. De Jesus to clarify the concept of good faith:

Good faith, here understood, is an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning or statutory definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage. An individual’s personal good faith is a concept of his own mind and, therefore, may not conclusively be determined by his protestations alone. It implies honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the validity of one’s right, ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of intention to overreach another. x x x

The Supreme Court emphasized that the jurisprudence cited by the appellate court pertained to criminal liability for falsification of public documents under the Revised Penal Code. The element of damage need not be proved to hold the respondents administratively liable. Even so, the Court noted that the government suffered damage because the respondents collected salaries based on falsified DTRs. “The falsification of one’s DTR to cover up one’s absences or tardiness automatically results in financial losses to the government because it enables the employee concerned to be paid salaries and to earn leave credits for services which were never rendered.”

Regarding the issue of prescription, the Court cited Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6770, also known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989. This provision gives the Office of the Ombudsman discretion whether to proceed with an investigation even beyond the one-year period from the commission of the offense. The Court also stated that the dismissal of a criminal case involving the same facts does not necessarily lead to the dismissal of administrative charges. The Supreme Court cited Tecson v. Sandiganbayan:

[I]t is a basic principle of the law on public officers that a public official or employee is under a three-fold responsibility for violation of a duty or for a wrongful act or omission. This simply means that a public officer may be held civilly, criminally, and administratively liable for a wrongful doing. Thus, if such violation or wrongful act results in damages to an individual, the public officer may be held civilly liable to reimburse the injured party. If the law violated attaches a penal sanction, the erring officer may be punished criminally. Finally, such violation may also lead to suspension, removal from office, or other administrative sanctions. This administrative liability is separate and distinct from the penal and civil liabilities. x x x

The Court then addressed the issue of condonation raised by one of the respondents. It clarified that condonation applies only when a public official is re-elected despite a pending administrative case. In this case, one respondent held an appointive, not an elective, position prior to her election as Councilor.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found the respondents administratively liable for dishonesty due to the falsification of their DTRs. While the initial recommendation was dismissal, the Court agreed with the tempered penalty of a one-year suspension without pay. This was due to the confidential nature of the respondents’ employment and the knowledge and consent of their father, who appointed them. The Court recognized the relative flexibility given to confidential employees, but emphasized that substantial non-attendance and the collection of full salaries for work not rendered cannot be tolerated. Such actions erode public trust in the government.

FAQs

What is a Daily Time Record (DTR)?	A DTR is an official document used by government employees to record their daily attendance and working hours. It serves as the basis for calculating their salaries and ensuring compliance with work hour requirements.
What is dishonesty in the context of public service?	Dishonesty in public service refers to the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud. It involves untrustworthiness and a lack of integrity, undermining the public’s trust in government officials and employees.
What constitutes falsification of an official document?	Falsification of an official document involves knowingly making false statements in official or public documents. This includes altering, modifying, or misrepresenting information to deceive or mislead others.
What standard of evidence is required to prove administrative liability?	To prove administrative liability, only substantial evidence is required. Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Does damage to the government need to be proven in administrative cases of dishonesty?	No, the element of damage need not be proven to hold a public employee administratively liable for dishonesty and falsification of official documents. The act of falsification itself is sufficient to establish guilt.
What is the significance of ‘no work, no pay’ principle?	The ‘no work, no pay’ principle ensures that employees are compensated only for the actual work they perform. It prevents unjust enrichment and safeguards government funds by preventing payments for services not rendered.
Can an administrative case continue if a related criminal case is dismissed?	Yes, an administrative case is separate and distinct from criminal and civil liabilities. The dismissal of a criminal case does not automatically lead to the dismissal of an administrative case.
What is the condonation doctrine?	The condonation doctrine states that an official’s re-election can condone prior misconduct. However, this applies only to elected officials who are re-elected despite the knowledge of their prior misconduct.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Office of the Ombudsman v. Torres reinforces the importance of honesty and integrity in public service. By holding public employees accountable for falsifying their DTRs, the Court upheld the principle that public office is a public trust. This ruling serves as a reminder that government employees must adhere to the highest ethical standards to maintain public confidence and trust.

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: OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. MARIAN D. TORRES and MARICAR D. TORRES, G.R. No. 168309, January 29, 2008