Case facts: In April 2010, Dr.

Doolittle, a president of a
government university in Tacloban City issued Memorandum
Order no. 01 dated August 1, 2010 requiring all its employees
to make use of the new biometric system of logging in
attendance;
Section 3. That all personnel regardless of their
status of employment whether regular or part-time, as
well as job-order employees and student assistants,
are hereby mandated to observe the new system of
monitoring of attendance by using the biometrics
machines installed at conspicuous places within the
University Campuses.
Section 10.
That five (5) days thereafter, said
electronic time card together with the Summary
Attendance Sheet shall be submitted to the Human
Resource Management Office (HRMO) to support the
preparation of the payrolls.
Section 11.
All immediate supervisors are hereby
mandated not to affix their signatures on any document
purporting to monitor attendance which are not in
consonance with this memorandum order.
Hence,
University personnel do who not comply with this
memorandum order shall not be paid their salaries for
failure to submit the required document provided
herein as proof of rendition of services;
All of the 856 employees of the school followed the
directive,
except for 15 employees who are members of the
local union.
They make use of the log book to indicate their attendance
but do not record the correct times of their arrival so that their
supervisors refuse to sign their Daily Time Records.

Issues:
1. Did Dr. Doolittle make a mistake in issuing Memorandum
Order No. 01 series of 2010 without consulting the 15
employees from the union?
Answer
a. The memorandum order of the school president is valid
since it is consistent with the provisions of Rule XVII
Sections 1 and 2 of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules
implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 or the
Administrative Code of 1987; whereby Section 1 thereof
states that it shall be the duty of the head of department or
agency to require all officers and employees under him to
strictly observe the prescribed office hours. Likewise,
Section 2 mandates that the head of agency require a daily
record of attendance of all officers and employees under
him including those serving in the field or on the water, to
be kept in proper form and whenever possible, registered in
the bundy clock. In the instant case, the issuance of the
order by the subject agency head was a compliance with
the mandates of the stated rule thus rendering his said
action valid and effective.
b. Being the head of the agency, the President has the
authority to issue the Memorandum Order even without
consultation from the employees because his authority
emanates from the provisions of the aforesaid Omnibus Civil
Service Rules, among other laws or rules.
c. There are already several decided cases from the Supreme
Court whereby employees have been held liable for not
recording their attendance in their proper forms; GRA NO.

d. The school president, being the head of the school has the
authority and power to pass memorandum orders in connection
with Rule no. 17 Sections 1 and 2. The purpose of the President
in passing the said Order is so he could monitor each and every
employee or public officer of the University. The biometric
system is similar to that of the bundy clock which is used to
ascertain that the time written on their daily time record is
authentic.

2. If Dr. Doolittle were to file her case against these erring

employees, what court would hold jurisdiction over the case:
the ombudsman, civil service commission, or the regional
trial court?
ANSWER
a. Since the school is a public agency, the President can opt to
file a case against the 15 erring employees in either of these
two courts: Office of the Ombudsman or with the Civil
Service Commission.
Whoever takes cognizance of the
case first shall exclude all others.
b. It could be the ombudsman or the civil service whichever
take cognizance first of the case. Once any of the agencies
take cognizance of the case, they will have exclusive
jurisdiction over the case.

3. Are the employees correct in not recording their proper

times of arrival in the logbook and their Daily Time Records?
Are their supervisors justified in refusing to affix their
signatures in their Daily Time Records?
a. The wrong form of recording daily work attendance
tantamounts to the non-existence of such attendance.

Consequently, the non-attendance in office means that no

salary was earned.
Thus, unless validly justified with
documentary proofs that the concerned actually rendered
services during the days attendance were reported thru use
of the wrong form of records, release of salaries to the 15
employees are deemed short of legality.
b. The respective supervisors of the erring employees have
every right to withhold their signatures on the Daily Time
Records because these DTRs CIVIL SERVICE FORM 46
contain a certification that the above entries made by the
employee are true and correct and signing these documents
when they do not state the correct facts amounts to
falsification of public documents.

SOURCES;
I. Primary Sources rulings from the Supreme Court, quasi
judicial rulings from the Office of the Ombudsman; Civil
Service
Commission and the Sandiganbayan
and the
Commission on Audit.
a. Book V of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 on the
Civil Service Commission;
b. Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order
292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws.
c. Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
d. Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees RA 6713.
e. CSC Memo Circulars Index 1988-1989.

f. Manual on Definitions of Administrative Offenses in the Civil

Service.
g.

The Revised Rules of Procedures of CHED on

Administrative Cases is an amendment to DECS Order No.
33, s. 1999.

II. Secondary Sources publications from the Civil

Commission; Commission on Audit and Office
Ombudsman.
III.

Service
of the

Finding tools SCRA quick-index digest, PHILJURIS and LEX

LIBRIS through the internet and the The Philippine eLib
Portal System:

GROUP I;
Helen O. Fabra
Krizel Mary B. Castroverde