This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-04-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The tampering of DTRs constitutes acts of falsification of official documents,[33] as well as dishonesty and duplicity, which deserve appropriate sanction from this Court.[34] Under Section 23 (a) and (f)[35] of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292,[36] falsification of official documents is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service even for the first offense. This Court has not hesitated to dismiss an erring employee of the judiciary found guilty of falsification of DTRs.[37] In recommending a lighter penalty, the OCA has not cited any reason or basis for its recommendation. We find that the penalty as recommended by the OCA applies to frequent unauthorized absences, provided for in Section 23 (q)[38] of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. We note, however, that in A.M. No. P-02-1621, the complaint against respondents Pimentel and Atty. Vargas was not for unauthorized absences but for "gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsification of official document."[39] In the report of Judge Atienza concurred in by the OCA, both Pimentel and Atty. Vargas were found culpable not for unauthorized absences, but for dishonesty and falsification of official documents. Harsh as the penalty may be, it is the penalty provided for the offense by law and this Court has no option but to apply the law which calls for dismissal. | |||||