ATTY. ANTONIO G. MIRANO, COMPLAINANT, VS. MARILYN O. SAAVEDRA, RESPONDENT.

This administrative case
was initiated by a complaint^[1] filed by Atty. Antonio G. Mirano, Branch
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 142, against
respondent Marilyn O. Saavedra, former stenographic reporter of the same court,
for falsification of daily time records (hereinafter referred to as DTRs). Respondent Saavedra is presently employed in the Senate as Legislative
Staff Officer IV.

The records show that
respondent was formerly the court stenographer of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 8. On September 28,
1984, Judge Arsenio M. Gonong of said court issued Administrative Order No. 6^[2]
ordering the cancellation of respondent’s
appointment and inclusion as court
stenographer in the plantilla of said trial court, without prejudice to the
filing of the appropriate administrative charge. This was precipitated by several incidents as explained in the
aforesaid order of Judge Gonong, to wit:

“In view of the fact that this court has been functioning with ONLY ONE stenographer
since July, 1984 in the person of Mrs. Rebecca J. Herrera due to the fact that
the other stenographer, Ms. Elizabeth San Juan had been on a prolonged sick leave since July, 1984 and the other one,
Mrs. MARILYN O. SAAVEDRA, whose services as such (are) sorely needed, the
services of the latter could not be effectively utilized since July, 1984 up to
the present, reason being her frequent absences without any justifiable cause,
which is a culpable violation of her oath of office amounting to abandonment of
her position.

“As evidence of Mrs. Saavedra’s indifference to her official
duties and abandonment of her position are: (1) From the period covering the months of July, August and September
she had, on several occasions, absented herself without justifiable cause
and/or did not report for duty, and as regards her timecard, she leaves the
court without punching it, in order to attend to her personal businesses, never
to return again until the next day when she reports and punches again her
timecard, making entries thereon in ballpen, thus falsifying her entries
(Please refer to Mrs. Saavedra’s Daily Time Card for the month of July (and)
August, now with the Leave Section of the Supreme Court); (2) Sometime in the
first week of September, 1984 Mrs. Saavedra requested permission to transfer to
Branch LIII of this Court of (sic) which
said request was granted and thereafter she did not report anymore to this
court; (3) Surprisingly, on September 18, 1984 Mrs. Saavedra filed a letter
requesting permission to transfer to Branch CXLII of the Regional Trial Court
of Makati (NCJR), the same was again granted x x x; (4) Lately, Mrs. Saavedra
appeared again in court requesting that a letter/order be issued for her to be
detailed in any branch of the RTC-Makati, and there being no merit in it, the
same was denied due course.

“With the above findings, this court is of the considered view
that these actuations of Mrs. Marilyn O. Saavedra means (sic) only one thing,
that is, SHE DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE WITH THE SERVICE, and that her continued
stay would only serve as a blot to the good name of the judiciary and, above all, prejudicial to the interest
of the litigants in court cases.”

However, the
administrative case did not proceed because respondent tendered
her resignation,^[3] which was subsequently accepted by Judge
Gonong and indorsed to the Supreme Court.^[4] In the meantime, respondent applied for and
was allowed to transfer to the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 142, and
started to discharge her duties therein as a stenographic reporter.

On November 27, 1989, a
verified complaint containing the following charges and specifications was
filed by Atty. Mirano with the Office of the Court Administrator against
respondent:

x x x

“10. That just
lately, however, Respondent committed
acts which in the opinion of Complainant are unforgivable and deserve no compassion as they are clear
violation(s) of the Civil Service (sic) and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations, hence, Complainant charges Respondent with misrepresentation,
dishonesty or lack of candor by falsifying her daily time records committed as
follows:

That on September 16, 1989, without the knowledge of herein
Complainant, the Respondent prepared and filled up her daily time records (Form
No. 48) for the months of April, 1989 up to August, 1989 inclusive and
presented the same for certification to the Presiding Judge of said sala. The Presiding Judge, not being aware that
said daily time records were not in accord of (sic) what appeared in the
logbook and acting on the impression that those daily time records were correct
as the same were already signed by the Respondent, certified the correctness of
said entries. Respondent then filed the
said daily time records to (sic) the office of the Administrative Services of
the Supreme Court.

Later, the Presiding Judge came to know that the daily time records
were prepared without consulting the logbook, called complainant in his
chamber, the former informing the latter that he was deceived by Respondent;
the Complainant got the transmittal of the daily time records to the Office of
the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Makati, Metro Manila, stamped
received and showed the same to the Presiding Judge (Pls. see Annexes ‘H’,
‘H-1’ and ‘H-2’). Complainant sent a
telegram addressed to the Office of the Hon. Court Administrator not to allow Respondent
to withdraw the daily time records already filed (Pls. see Annex ‘I’), and also
followed by a formal letter dated September 20, 1989 with the same tenor (Pls.
see. Annex ‘J’). Respondent sensing
that Complainant was already aware of the daily time records signed by the
Presiding Judge, intended to fill up application forms for leave and with the
intention of swapping the same with the daily time records already with the
Supreme Court.

In answer to the telegram
and letter, Ma. Rowena Castro-Benipayo, Asst. Chief of Office,
Administrative Services, in her letter dated September 26, 1989 (Pls. see Annex
‘K’) furnished complainant with certified xerox copies of said daily time
records on file with the Supreme Court attached thereto as Annexes ‘L’, ‘M’, ‘N’, ‘O’, ‘P’, and ‘Q’.”

“11. That upon
examination and comparison of the aforesaid daily time records marked as
Annexes ‘L’, ‘M’, ‘N’, ‘O’, ‘P’ and ‘Q’ inclusive, with the entries appearing
in the logbook and transmittal of daily time records to the Clerk of Court,
Complainant found the following discrepancies, to wit:

a) For the month of March, 1989, it appears
from the logbook and transmittal of daily time records to the Office of the
Clerk of Court that Respondent was absent on March 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, 1989;
the reason was that Respondent guided her balikbayan sisters in different
places (Pls. see Annexes ‘H’ and ‘H-1’; ‘S’); in Annex ‘S’, her signature does
not appear and yet in her daily time record for the month of March, 1989 marked
as Annex ‘L’, she was present on those dates.

b) For the month of April, 1989, it appears
from the logbook that Respondent was absent on April 3, 4, 5 and 6, 1989,
reason: she did continue guiding her balikbayan sisters (Pls. see
Annexes ‘H’, ‘H-1’ and ‘I’), and yet in her daily time record for the month of
April furnished by the Supreme Court marked as Annex ‘M’, she was present on those dates;

c) For the month of (sic) April 24, 25, 26, 27
and 28, 1989, Respondent joined the personnel who initiated a mass leave of
absence as substantiated by several Orders of the Court resulting in the
resetting of trials scheduled for hearing on those dates (Pls. see Annexes ‘T’,
‘T-1’, ‘T-2’, ‘U’, ‘U-1’, ‘U-2’, ‘U-3’, ‘V’, ‘V-1’, ‘V-2’, ‘V-3’ &
‘W’). In a resolution En Banc by the
Hon. Supreme Court dated April 27, 1989, the same should have been charged
against the accumulated leave credits of said employee (Pls. see Annexes ‘X’,
‘X-1’, ‘X-2’, and ‘X-3’) and yet in Respondent’s daily time record for the
month of April, 1989 (Pls. see Annex ‘M’), it appears that she was present (o)n
those dates. Another thing noticeable
in Annex ‘M’, the name under the capitalized DAILY TIME RECORD written is Marilyn A. Oribiana while the
signature below is MOSaavedra; (t)his is a sign of deception, an unauthorized use of name.

d) For the month of May, 1989, it appears from
the logbook that Respondent was absent on May 16, 1989 (Pls. see Annex ‘Y’) and
yet in Respondent’s daily time record for the month of May, 1989 (Pls. see
Annex ‘N’) it appears that she was present on that date.

e) For the month of June, 1989, it appears from
the logbook that Respondent was absent on June 5, 1989 (Pls. see Annex ‘Z’) and
yet in Respondent’s daily time record for the month of June, 1989 (Pls. see
Annex ‘O’) it appears that she was present on that date;

f) For the month of July, 1989, it appears
from the logbook that Respondent was absent on July 10, 11, 12 and 28, 1989
(Pls. see Annexes ‘AA’ and ‘AA-1’) and yet in Respondent’s daily time record
for the month of July, 1989 (Pls. see Annex ‘Q’) it appears that she was
present on those dates.

g) For the month of August, 1989 the name
Marilyn A. Oribiana was typewritten below the capitalized words “DAILY
TIME RECORD” and respondent’s signature below is MOSaavedra; this is a
sign of deception and an unauthorized use of name in public record.”^[5]

x x x

In her Comment,^[6]
respondent averred, inter alia:

“3. That as with
regards (sic) to the undersigned’s entries in her daily time record, that as
far as her knowledge is concerned,
the undersigned reported for duty on such dates and that the log book for (sic)
which the complainant allegedly based his accusations is treated more of (sic)
as his ‘Diary’ than a log book considering that the court personnel are not
putting their time in and out regularly, but only when the complainant wants us
to do so.

“4. That  if the undersigned committed an error in
making her entries in her daily time record (which she does not admit) she did
not have the intention to commit ‘falsification’ in her daily time record
considering that in her thirteen (13) years of service in the judiciary x x x,
the undersigned has accumulated earned leave credits, and it would surely
suffice to cover up for her absences, if she undergoes the same. x x x At this point in time, the undersigned
is not ashamed to admit that she is presently begging for help and financial
assistance from her parents, and sisters (who are living abroad) in order for
them to survive, that would leave us the question of, “WHY THEN WOULD SHE
PUT HER ENTIRE FUTURE & CAREER AND THAT OF HER CHILDREN AT STAKE” just
for that issue which can be well covered by her earned leave credits? x x
x.”

In a resolution dated
July 25, 1990,^[7] this Court, on the recommendation of then
Court Administrator Meynardo A. Tiro,^[8] referred the case to the Executive Judge of
the Regional Trial Court of Makati for investigation, report and
recommendation. In said investigation,
Atty. Mirano testified on his complaint. Respondent Saavedra merely submitted
a sworn statement dated April 2, 1993.^[9] Thereafter, Executive Judge Salvador S. Abad
Santos submitted his report, dated May 26, 1993,^[10] recommending
the dismissal of respondent from the service after finding the latter guilty of
falsifying her DTRs.

We agree with the
findings of the investigating judge. A
perusal of respondent’s DTRs in question readily show that, purportedly, she
had not incurred any absences from March, 1989 up to and until August, 1989.^[11] This is the reason why, when she submitted her DTRs to Judge Salvador P. de Guzman
for signature and certification, she did not attach any application for
leave form. After affixing his
signature thereon, Judge de Guzman, doubting the veracity of respondent’s DTRs,
immediately informed Atty. Mirano of his suspicions. Upon verification with the court personnel’s
logbook which was in the custody of Atty. Mirano, it was discovered that
respondent had actually incurred several absences from March to July of 1989
but which absences were not reflected on the DTRs of respondent nor was there
any application for leave filed by her therefor.

In his testimony, Atty.
Mirano established that on March 27, 28, 29 and 31, 1989, as well as on April
3, 4, 5 and 6, 1989, respondent did not report for work because she acted as
guide for her two balikbayan sisters. On April 24, 25, 26 and 27, 1989, respondent joined in the mass leave of
court personnel initiated by the Philippine Association of Court
Employees. Withal, she did not file any
application for leave for these later dates, despite this Court’s directive of
April 17, 1989 to the effect that the absences of court personnel during the period from April 24 to April 28,
1989 must be charged against their respective accumulated leave credits.^[12]
Worse, she also made it appear that she
was present on May 16, 1989, June 5, 1989 and July 10, 11, 12 and 28, 1989
although her signatures did not appear in the logbook on these respective
dates.^[13]
Furthermore, the DTRs filed by
respondent with this Court for the months of April and August, 1989, although
apparently signed by her, indisputably reflected the name of Marilyn O.
Oribiana on the top portions thereof.^[14]

In her defense,
respondent imputes ill motives as the compelling factor behind the filing of
this administrative action against her. She asserts that she is being administratively charged by way of
reprisal for a previous complaint^[15] she had lodged against Atty. Mirano before
the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati anent the latter’s
conduct in dealing with court personnel. She likewise claims that she accomplished her DTRs without first
consulting the court logbook allegedly because Atty. Mirano refused to give
it to her and she was already being
required by the Office of the Court Administrator to submit the same, under
pain of being declared absent without leave (AWOL) and dropped from the
roll. In addition, respondent submits
that if indeed she had incurred absences, the same could easily be charged
against her earned leave credits which were more than enough to cover her
absences.

What is worthy, of note,
however, is that respondent does not refute, much less deny, the testimony of
Atty. Mirano that she was indeed absent on certain specified dates and yet she
failed to report the same by not filing the appropriate applications for leave. In a futile attempt to rectify her alleged mistakes, or so respondent
claims, she tried to retrieve the DTRs which she submitted with the leave
section of the Supreme Court but was deterred from doing so when Atty. Mirano
advised then Court Administrator Tiro not to allow her to change her DTRs.^[16] Ironically, this vain effort on the
part of respondent to change the entries on her DTRs is, for all intents and
purposes, an admission on her part that she actually falsified the same. The dishonesty of respondent in
misrepresenting to the court that she was present during the dates specified,
when in truth and in fact she did not report for work, constitutes serious
misconduct which we cannot countenance.

Her contention that Atty. Mirano merely filed this case in
retaliation for the complaint she filed before the Executive Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati against the former, even if true, is of no
controlling significance. Whatever
motivated Atty. Mirano to file the present administrative charge is beside the
point when we consider the preponderance of evidence proving that respondent is
guilty of falsifying her DTRs. Moreover, the Court has observed that it has long been the practice of
respondent to falsify entries in her DTRs as this was also the precise reason
why Judge Gonong, in whose court she was previously employed, issued an
administrative order directing the cancellation of her appointment as court
stenographer. This only serves to
fortify the postulation that Atty. Mirano was actually impelled by a sense of
vindication in administratively charging herein respondent. Finally, and evidently, the fact that
respondent has sufficient leave credits to cover her absences cannot in law absolve
her from liability for falsification of her DTRs.

Public service requires
utmost integrity and strictest discipline. A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty
and integrity.^[17] 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. The conduct and behavior of everyone
connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the
presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy
burden of responsibility. Their
conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum
but, above all else, must be above suspicion. Indeed, every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.^[18]

Under Memorandum Circular
No. 30 of the Civil Service Commission, dated July 20, 1989, falsification of
an official document is considered a grave offense which warrants the penalty
of dismissal. That factual situation
and legal sanction are involved in this case before us.

WHEREFORE, respondent Marilyn O. Saavedra is hereby
DISMISSED from the government service, with forfeiture of all retirement
benefits and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the Government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Melo, Quiason, Puno, and Vitug, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., no part.

^[1]
Rollo, 1.

^[2]
Exhibit C; Rollo, 196.

^[3]
Exhibit D; ibid., 198.

^[4]
Exhibit E; ibid., 199.

^[5]
Rollo, 114-117.

^[6]
Ibid., 55-56.

^[7]
Ibid., 65.

^[8]
Ibid., 62.

^[9]
Ibid., 285.

^[10]
Ibid., 265.

^[11]
Exhibits N to S; ibid., 211-213.

^[12]
TSN, October 4, 1990, 11-14.

^[13]
Ibid., Id., 14-15.

^[14]
Exhibits O and S; Rollo, 211,
213.

^[15]
Exhibit J; ibid., 207.

^[16]
Exhibit K; ibid., 209.

^[17]
Hipolito vs. Mergas, etc., 195 SCRA 6 (1991).

^[18]
Sy vs. Academia, et al. 198 SCRA 705 (1991).