Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RE: ALLEGED TAMPERING OF DAILY TIME RECORDS OF SHERRY B. CERVANTES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM NO. P-04-1838 2006-08-31	RE: AUDIT REPORT ON ATTENDANCE OF COURT PERSONNEL OF RTC
In Reyes-Domingo v. Morales,[9] the branch clerk of court who was found guilty of dishonesty in not reflecting the correct time in his DTR was merely imposed a penalty of fine of P5,000.00. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Villaflor,[10] the clerk of court who made untruthful entries in the log book was imposed a penalty of fine in the amount of P5,000.00. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Saa,[11] the clerk of court of the MCTC of Camarines Norte made it appear in his DTR that he was present in office, when all the while he was attending hearings of his own case in Quezon City was fined P5,000.00. In Re: Alleged Tampering of the Daily Time Records (DTR) of Sherry B. Cervantes, Court Stenographer III, Branch 18, Regional Trial Court, Manila,[12] the stenographer was found guilty of dishonesty for tampering her DTR and fined the amount of P5,000.00.
	AM NO. 2005-01-SC 2005-06-08	CONCERNED EMPLOYEE v. ROBERTO VALENTIN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In several cases, we refrained from imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service where the erring employee has not been previously charged with an administrative offense.[5] In fact, in several cases[6] taking into consideration the presence of mitigating circumstances, we lowered the penalty of dismissal imposed on respondent. We believe that a penalty of suspension for six (6) months without pay and with warning is in order.
	ADM MATTER NO. P-05-1932 2005-02-15	JUDGE ROLANDO G. HOW v. TEODORA A. RUIZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to respondent's offense of dishonesty, the schedule of penalties in the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides that dishonesty is considered a grave offense which is punishable by dismissal from the service even only for the first infraction.[6] However, considering that respondent has already been dropped from the rolls, we are left with no recourse but to impose a penalty of fine. It appearing that this is respondent's first offense, it is considered a mitigating circumstance in her favor.[7] On this basis, we find it proper to impose a fine of P5,000.00 upon respondent.[8]
	AM No. P-04-1901 2004-11-23	JUDGE TEODORO L. DIPOLOG v. CLERK OF COURT II DARRYL C. MONTEALTO TINGA, J,
The Court has, in several cases, refrained from imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal where the erring employee had not been previously charged with an administrative offense.[29] Inasmuch as the respondents in this case (except respondent Bation) have not been administratively charged prior to this case, the Court deems it proper to apply such mitigating circumstance in their favor and accordingly, to reduce the penalty imposable upon each of them to suspension for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day.