369 Phil. 840; 93 OG No. 34, 5292 (August 21, 2000)
PER CURIAM:
The November, 1994 and December, 1994 DTRs with the attached applications for leave and transmittal letter were all entrusted to Ms.Gregoria Florendo for submission to the Supreme Court. Investigation made by the undersigned showed that the tampering was done by Ms. Florendo and Clerk Ma. Dina Bernardo while said DTRs were in Ms. Florendo's possession. The tampering was done in her own house the night before the DTRs were brought to the Supreme Court. Ms. Florendo and Ms. Bernardo tampered not only their own respective DTRs but also the DTR of the other employees of this Branch, without their knowledge and consent. Ms. Linafe Quijano, Ms. Victoria Roque and Ms. Josefina Cunanan submitted their statements denying prior knowledge of the tampering. A careful perusal of the tampered DTRs showed that the tampered entries were not written by the following employees: Ms. Quijano, Ms. Cunanan, Ms. Roque and even Mr. Florendo, who was a witness to the tampering of the November, 1994 DTRs.Upon discovering more tampered DTRs, Atty. Vizcarra submitted to this Court a Second Comment. Atty. Vizcarra found that aside from the tampered DTRs already discovered by the Supreme Court Office of Administrative Services, the DTRs of the following employees were also tampered with:x x x.
In a meeting called by the undersigned regarding the tampering of DTRs, Ms. Florendo and Ms. Bernanrdo admitted their participation in the tampering. Ms. Florendo further admitted to the undersigned that they also tampered the DTRs of their co-employees and their reason for this is that and I quote: "Kung yung amin lang ang tatamperin namin baka hindi ka mag-second thought na ireport kami, ngayon kung maraming DTR ang tampered baka sakaling hindi mo kami ireport at marami kami. What Ms. Florendo did not foresee is that it would be the people at the Supreme Court itself who would discover the falsification and not the undersigned. Also, contrary to Ms. Florendo's amd Ms. Bernardo's expectations, their other officemates refused to join them in building up a lie and, instead, opted to tell the truth. Mr. Juanito Florendo, the branch Utility Worker and nephew of Ms. Florendo and who lives in the house of the latter, gave a statement under oath that when the November, 1994 DTRs of Ms. Florendo, Ms. Bernardo and the rest of the staff were being tampered by Ms. Florendo and Ms. Bernardo, he was there present but could not do anything ablout it for fear of his aunt.
x x x.[3]
Atty. Vizcarra concluded thus:
OCTOBER 1994 GREGORIA R. FLORENDO only NOVEMBER 1994 MA. DINA A. BERNARDO, CELIA G. LUNA JOSEFINA A. CUNANAN, PEDRO C. BINUYA; DECEMBER 1994 MA. DINA A. BERNARDO, EMILIE P. LIWAG, ALBERTO S. RAMOS, VICTORIA D. ROQUE, LINAFE R. QUIJANO[4]
We required Gregoria R. Florendo, Josefina A. Cunanan, Linafe R. Quijano, Ma. Victoria D. Roque and Juanito F. Florendo to file their respective answers with the Court.[6]
- The DTRs for the months of October 1994, November 1994 and December 1994 of certain personnel of this branch were tampered with;
- The tamperings were committed by MS. GREGORIA R. FLORENDO, & Ms. DINA A. BERNARDO, in the presence of Mr. JUANITO F. FLORENDO, the branch Utility Worker, nephew and household member of Ms. Gregoria Florendo;
- The tampering were committed in the house of Ms. Gregoria Florendo to whom undersigned entrusted the DTRs for submission to the Supreme Court, insofar as the November & December 1994 DTRs are concerned;
- nsofar as the October 1994 DTRs are concerned, only the DTR of Ms. Gregoria Florendo is tampered with. Ms. Florendo was also the one who submitted the October 1994 DTRs of this branch to the Supreme Court;
- The DTRs were tampered with by Ms. Florendo and Ms. Bernardo without the knowledge and consent of their officemates;
- The tampering came to the knowledge of the undersigned only when she received the letter from Atty. Adelaida Cabe-Baumann calling her attention regarding the tampered DTRs. The original DTRs which were tampered with were attached to said letter;
- The DTR of Mr. Juanito Florendo for the month of November 1994 was likewise tampered with but he alleged that although he was present when said DTR was being tampered with, he was not able to do anything to stop it for fear of his aunt, Ms. Gregoria Florendo. Regarding his December 1994 DTR which was also tampered with, he alleged that he has nothing to do with its tampering;
- Ms. Ma. Dina A. Bernardo, who admitted her participation in the tampering to the undersigned and her officemates did otherwise in her written statement. She alleged that mechanical tampering of her DTR is a remote possibility. She did not categorically deny or make mention of her participation in the tampering of her officemates' DTRs which was the subject of a memo sent to her by the undersigned. The November and December 1994 DTRs of Ms. Bernardo were both tampered with.
- Ms. Gregoria Florendo did not submit any written explanation to the undersigned despite receipt of the letters sent her by the undersigned asking her to expalin why there are tampered entries in her DTRs.
- The following are the employees with tampered DTRs and the particular entries tampered with:
Looking at the above data, it could be readily seen that Ms. Florendo has the most number of tampered entries. It must be noted here that Ms. Florendo has just been reemployed August 1994, which means that she has no leave credits yet or is not entitled to a leave with pay. With the number of absences she incurred, definitely there would be a cut in her salary and this is what Ms. Florendo was trying to avoid. This was the reason why she tampered her DTR, first in October. When her October 1994 DTR did not return despite the erasures she made, she was emboldened to tamper again her November 1994 DTR, this time in cahoot with Ma. Dina A. Bernardo, who tampered also her own DTR. Not content with tampering their own DTRs, they tampered also with the DTRs of their officemates. They did the same on the December DTRs. When asked by the undersigned why they had to involve the other personnel of this branch who was not aware of and who did not authorize the tampering committed, Ms. Florendo replied that "Kung yung amin lang ang tatamperin namin baka hindi ka mag-second thought na ireport kami, kung maraming DTR ang tampered baka sakaling hindi mo kami ireport at marami kami". Ms. Florendo and Ms. Bernardo believed that they could use their officemates as a shield. Unfortunately, they read everything wrong.[5]
- GREGORIA R. FLORENDO-
OCTOBER 5, 6, 10, 18,19, 1994; NOVEMBER
2,3,7,15,16,17,22,29, 1994;
DECEMBER 1,6,9,15,19,20,21,27, 1994.- MA. DINA A. BERNARDO-
NOVEMBER 8,16,18,29, 1994;
DECEMBER 1,5,8,15, 1994;- JUANITO F. FLORENDO-
NOVEMBER 2,15,28, 1994;
DECEMBER 6,12,13,19, 1994.- CELIA G. LUNA-
NOVEMBER 2, 18, 1994;- JOSEFINA A. CUNANAN-
NOVEMBER 11, 16, 18, 28, 1994;
DECEMBER 6,12,13,26,27,29, 1994;- LINAFE R. QUIJANO-
NOVEMBER 2, 17, 18, 29, 1994;
DECEMBER 19,20,21,22, 1994.- VICTORIA D. ROQUE-
NOVEMBER 2, 18, 1994;
DECEMBER 6, 7, 1994.- ALBERTO S. RAMOS-
DECEMBER 1, 6, 1994.- PEDRO C. BINUYA-
NOVEMBER 28, 1994.- EMILIE P. LIWAG-
DECEMBER 21, 1994.
Nang binabago po and mga DTRs ay wala po akong magawa, nais ko mang kumontra sapagkat x x x ang laki ng takot ko sa aking tiyahin at ako ay hind puwedeng kumibo at kumontra sa kanyang mga balakin, una dahil siya ay aking tiyahin at ikalawa dahil sa kanya ako naninirahan.[22]We note that unlike Ma. Dina A. Bernardo and respondent Gregoria R. Florendo, Juanito F. Florendo freely cooperated in the investigation of the case, first by Atty. Vizcarra and later by the investigating judge, and he also filed his answer with this Court when directed to. Taking these particulars into consideration, we find the penalty recommended by the investigating judge-- six months suspension without pay-as too harsh. We feel that suspension of one month without pay to be more in accord with the circumstances.