FIRST DIVISION
ZENAIDA
REYES-MACABEO,
CLERK OF COURT,
MeTC, BRANCH 26,
MANILA,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-02-1650
April 3, 2003
-versus-
FLORITO EDUARDO
V.
VALLE, CLERK III,
MeTC, BRANCH 26,
MANILA,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O
N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
In a complaint dated January
8, 2002, Zenaida Reyes-Macabeo, Clerk of Court of the Metropolitan
Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 26, charged Florito Eduardo V. Valle, Clerk III
of the same court with Tardiness, Absenteeism and Falsification of
Entries
in the Attendance Logbook. Complainant avers that in several instances,
respondent altered the time of his arrival in the office; that despite
previous warning, he continues to be late or absent from work.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Comment dated
April 12, 2002, respondent admitted the charges against him and
explains
that he was beset with domestic problems. However, he pointed out that
even with his problems, he made it a point to perform his assigned
tasks.
He, nonetheless, apologized to Presiding Judge Emmanuel M. Lloredo and
to his co-employees assuring them that those "mistakes" will not happen
again.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon evaluation, the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that respondent be
suspended for one (1) year without pay with a stern warning that the
commission
of the same acts will be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the findings
of the OCA that respondent should indeed be punished for his
malfeasance,
and find the recommended penalty a proper sanction for the acts
complained
of.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The crux of the charge
against respondent is his habitual absenteeism and tardiness. Section
15,
Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292
provides
that –chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Any employee shall be
considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness regardless of number
of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least 2 months in a semester
or at least 2 consecutive months during the year. In case of claim of
ill-health,
heads of departments of agencies are encouraged to verify the validity
of such claim and, if not satisfied with the reason given, should
disapprove
the application for sick leave. On the other hand, cases of employees
who
absent themselves from work before the approval of the application
should
be disapproved outright.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Applications for vacation
leave of absence for one full day or more shall be submitted on the
prescribed
form for action by the proper chief of agency in advance, whenever
possible,
of the effective date of such leave.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Memorandum Circular
No. 4, Series of 1991, of the Civil Service Commission, an officer or
employee
in the civil service shall be considered habitually absent if he incurs
unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave
credits
under the leave law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at
least
three (3) consecutive months during the year. Such a violation renders
the erring employee administratively liable for the grave offense of
Frequent
Unauthorized Absences or Tardiness in Reporting for Duty and for Gross
Neglect of Duty under Section 22 (q) and (a), respectively of the
Omnibus
Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Along the same vein,
Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 30, Series of 1989, classified
habitual
absenteeism as a grave offense. Frequent unauthorized absences or
tardiness
in reporting for duty, loafing or frequent unauthorized absences during
regular office hours is penalized, if found guilty on the first
offense,
with suspension from six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year
and,
for the second offense, with dismissal from the service. Under the
present
Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions, an employee
who is absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar
days shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls even
without prior notice.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The records disclose
that respondent made the following entries in the Attendance Logbook,
to
wit:
Original "time in"
Altered/Falsified
to
Dates
12:00
p.m.
9:30
a.m.
August 24, 2001
9:03
p.m.
7:45
a.m.
August 28, 2001
12:00
p.m.
8:00
a.m.
August 30, 2001
9:35
a.m.
8:00
a.m.
September 7, 2001
12:30
p.m.
8:00
a.m.
September 12, 2001
12:00
p.m.
8:00
a.m.
September 20, 2001
12:00
p.m.
8:00
a.m.
September 28, 2001
8:00
a.m.
7:50
a.m.
October 3, 2001
9:00
a.m.
8:00
a.m.
October 4, 2001
8:00
a.m.
7:55
a.m.
October 5, 2001
9:30
a.m.
8:30
a.m.
October 12, 2001
8:35
a.m.
8:00
a.m.
October 18, 2001
8:53
a.m.
7:53
a.m.
October 30,2001
9:00
a.m.
8:00
a.m.
November 12, 2001
Respondent’s malfeasance
is classified as frequent or habitual. On this point, Section II of
Administrative
Circular No. 2-99 entitled "Strict Observance Of Working Hours And
Disciplinary
Action for Absenteeism And Tardiness" lays down the degree of
stringency
which must be adopted in the determination of the proper sanctions to
be
imposed, viz:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II Absenteeism
and tardiness, even if such do not qualify as "habitual" or "frequent"
under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of
1991,
shall be dealt with severely, and any falsification of daily time
records
to cover up for such absenteeism and/or tardiness shall constitute
gross
dishonesty or serious misconduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All too often, we have
declared that any act which falls short of the exacting standards for
public
office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image
of the judiciary, shall not be countenanced.[3]
To reiterate, public office is a public trust. Public officers must at
all times be accountable to the people, serve them with the utmost
degree
of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.[4]
In OCA v. Cabe,[5]
it was held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Time and again, we have
emphasized the heavy burden and responsibility which court personnel
are
saddled with in view of their exalted positions as keepers of the
public
faith. They must be constantly reminded that any impression of
impropriety,
misdeed or negligence in the performance of official functions must be
avoided.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Unauthorized absences
are punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for
the first offense, and the penalty of dismissal for the second offense[6]
with the degree of absenteeism and tardiness which would merit the
supreme
penalty of dismissal characterized as frequent, habitual and
unauthorized.[7]
By his habitual absenteeism respondent Valle has caused inefficiency in
the public service.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The gravity of the acts
complained of would have warranted respondent’s separation from the
service
and his dropping from the rolls. However, we agree with the
recommendation
of the OCA that for humanitarian considerations, respondent’s candid
admission
of his guilt and his sincere promise to improve his ways must be
considered
to mitigate his liability[8]
in the light of his domestic problems at the time of the commission of
the acts complained of. While the Court is duty-bound to sternly wield
a corrective hand to discipline its errant employees and to weed out
those
who are undesirable, it also has the discretion to temper the harshness
of its judgment with mercy. However, the penalty imposed on respondent
includes a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar
offense
will be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, respondent FLORITO EDUARDO V. VALLE is hereby
SUSPENDED
for One (1) Year without pay and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of
the
same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr.,
C.J.
,
(Chairman), Vitug,
Carpio, and Azcuna,
JJ.
, concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:cralaw:red
[1]
Loyao, Jr. v. Manatad, A.M. No. P-99-1308, 4 May 2000, 331 SCRA 324,
328-329.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Re: Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) of Darlene A. Jacoba,
Stenographer
III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Manila, 362 Phil. 486 (1999);
Lameyra
v. Pangilinan, 379 Phil. 116 (2000).
[3]
Re: Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) Of Antonio Macalintal,
Process
Server, Office of the Clerk of Court, A.M. No. 99-11-06-SC, 15 February
2000, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Ibid., citing Rangel-Roque v. Rivota, 362 Phil. 136 [1999], citing Gano
v. Leonen, A.M. No. P-82-756, 3 May 1994, 232 SCRA 98.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
A.M. No. P-96-1185, 26 June 2000, 334 SCRA 348.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Betguen v. Masangcay, A.M. No. P-93-822, 1 December 1994, 238 SCRA 475.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
OCA v. Grecia, 316 Phil. 184 [1995]; Municipality of Casiguran, Quezon
v. Morales, A.M. Nos. 81 MJ & 559-MJ, 17 November 1974, 61 SCRA 13.
[8]
See Absence Without Official Leave of Edelito Alfonso, A.M. No.
00-2-27-MTCC,
10 October 2000, 342 SCRA 389, 392.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |