OCA vs. EJ CABATO

Office of the Court Administrator Vs. Executive Judge Illuminada P. Cabato, et al.
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2401
January 25, 2017


FACTS:

Sherill IV Oliver N. Landingin of the RTC, Br. 7 in Baguio complained of bias and partiality against Judge Mona Lisa T. Tabora of the same office for affixing her signature on the DTR Bundy Cards of his other co-employees. The Office of the Court Administrator directed the conduct of discreet investigation and found that instead of using the bundy clocks, the court personnel were manually entering their arrival times in their bundy clock cards and office logbooks. The investigating team issued a Memorandum recommending that several employees be made to file their comments on charges of Dishonesty within 10 days that includes clerk of courts and judges.
The OCA classified the court personnel into four groups: 1) personnel who have no entries in the attendance log books/sheets; 2) personnel who have no entries in time-outs in the attendance log books/sheets; 3) personnel who made untruthful time-outs in the attendance log books/sheets; 4) the Judges and Clerk of Court who certified the DTR’s of the court personnel.


ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondents are guilty with violation of reasonable rules and regulations?


RULINGS:

YES.

In Contreras vs Monge, the Court classified the failure of the court personnel to enter their time-in and time-out in the office logbook as a light offense, to wit: “Her act of not logging in and out of the attendance logbook was, without doubt, her second violation of civil service rules. A light offense such as violation of reasonable offense such as a violation of reasonable office rules and regulations, if violated for the second time, is punishable by suspension for 1 to 30 days.”

In Office of the Court Administrator vs Kasilag “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 the government service. At the same time, it is also an act of dishonesty, which involves 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.