EN BANC
[A.M. No. 99-9-12-SC. March 10,
2000]
DR. ROSA J.
MENDOZA, petitioner, vs. RENATO LABAY OF THE MEDICAL ANCILLARY DIVISION,
respondent. Scsdaad
D E C I S I O N
PURISIMA, J.:
At bar is a letter-complaint dated April 19,
1999 of Dr. Rosa J. Mendoza[1] charging Renato Labay, a Utility Worker I with
permanent status, for Inefficiency in the Performance of Official Duties and
for Habitual Tardiness and Absenteeism.
The letter complaint avers that on three (3)
separate occasions, respondent Labay, who is assigned to the medical services
to do janitorial and messengerial work, failed to discharge his duties and
responsibilities to the prejudice of the service, to wit:
(a) On September 25, 1998, Ms. Evelyn
Concepcion, immediate supervisor of respondent, instructed him to fill the
pails with water since there was a notice of water interruption on that day.
But the respondent refused to obey Ms. Concepcion, insisting that there were
jugs filled with water enough to supply the needs of the clinic; Suprema
(b) Dr. Ramon Armedilla, Director of Medical
Services, denied the request of the respondent for a birthday leave on
September 27, 1998 and respondent was told to report for duty on that day
because of the scheduled bar examinations at the De La Salle University on said
date. The said order requiring him to report for duty notwithstanding, the
respondent absented himself on September 27, 1998.
(c) And on April 14, 1999, a
"clinically dead" employee was brought to the clinic for treatment.
The help of respondent was therefore needed to bring the dying person to the
nearest medical center but he (respondent) was nowhere to be found.
The complainant, Dr. Rosa J. Mendoza,
stressed that the habitual tardiness and absenteeism of the respondent, despite
repeated notice from the leave section, have demoralized the employees of the
medical services.
In his comment filed on May 10, 1999, the
respondent explained thus:
"I have not
been reported as habitually tardy nor habitually absent for the year 1998 and
the past months of 1999, to state that 'despite repeated notices from the leave
section regarding his habitual tardiness and absenteeism, Mr. Labay seemed
unmindful of the situation and continued violating the Civil Service Rules and
Regulations,' is therefore unfair. Leave records belie this accusation against
me. I have in fact shown improvement in my office attendance since that 1999
memo on my habitual tardiness. Another proof of this improvement is the fact
that I have already been (sic) my PET allowances which I was previously
withheld due to my tardiness.
May I also
mention, that inspite of the numerous tardiness (mostly in 1997 as officially
reported), I have not incurred any leave without pay. This is because I have
made any frequent absences. Again, leave records attest to this so that
habitual absenteeism cannot be made a case against me." Juris
To the charge of Inefficiency and
Incompetence in the performance of official duties, respondent explained as
follows:
1. Regarding
his failure to fill the pails with water prior to the waterless morning of
September 25, 1998, he said:
"In the
matter of the September 25, 1998 letter of Ms. Evelyn H. Concepcion, please be
informed that I have already been scolded by her for my failure to fill our
pails with water prior to the announced waterless morning of that day,
September 25, 1998. It was unfortunate that my act of reasoning out for that
pails incident (if I remember right, there were also big water jugs stored in
'bauls' which I was also supposed to fill with water) was presumed to be my
resistance to follow some instructions which are part of my duties."
2. As
regards the incident on April 14, 1999, he reasoned out: Scjuris
"In the
matter of April 14, 1999 memorandum of Dr. Rosa Mendoza, my recollection of the
incident is that the emergency happened before 8:30 AM. I was not at my post at
that time because I was having breakfast. My official time is 8:30 AM - 5:00
PM. So, I usually come back to the Clinic at 8:30 AM, or earlier. Again, it was
unfortunate that the emergency happened before I was supposed to be in the
Clinic."
3. With
respect to his request for birthday leave on September 27, 1998, respondent
theorized that the same should have been granted, inasmuch as under Civil
Service Rules and Regulations, he was entitled to a special birthday leave with
pay on that day.
In its Memorandum sent on September 15, 1999
to the Chief Justice, the Office of the Administrative Services, through the
Complaints and Investigation Division, reported: Jurissc
(1) Insofar as the charge of inefficiency
and incompetence committed on September 25, 1998, there is nothing on record to
show that the respondent willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of his
superior. Respondent merely told his supervisor that there was sufficient water
in the jugs to meet the needs of the clinic on that day. There was thus no
showing of arrogance on his part.
(2) Respondent is liable for inefficiency
for refusing to render overtime service in connection with the bar examinations
held on September 27, 1998. When his request for "birthday leave" on
September 27, 1998 was denied by his supervisor, it was the bounden duty of
respondent to report for work on the day because availment of the special leave
privilege under Civil Service Rules and Regulations is discretionary on the
part of the agency concerned. The agency may grant the same if it does not
hamper public service. Considering, however, that he was asked to report on
said date, it could only mean that his request had been denied. Consequently,
his refusal to report for work on that day constituted inefficiency within the
contemplation of the Rules and Regulations of the CSC;
(3) So also, respondent is guilty of
inefficiency in the performance of duty when there was an emergency case at the
clinic. Although his official time started at 8:30 a.m., the first aid
treatment administered then lasted beyond 8:30 a.m., at which precise time, the
respondent should have been already at his post. Conceding that he was then
having his breakfast outside, he should have told his co-employees were he was. Sdjad
Considering respondent's frequent tardiness
in 1997 as an aggravating circumstance, the Complaints and Investigation
Division, with the approval of Atty. Eden T. Candelaria,[2] and Atty. Luzviminda D. Puno,[3] recommended that respondent Renato Labay be fined an
amount equivalent to two (2) weeks salary, with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
The Court finds sustainable merit in the
aforecited report of the Office of Administrative Services.
Respondent, as a utility worker, should
diligently perform his duties and responsibilities to facilitate the delivery
of medical services. He should also be prompt in his attendance, and, like the
other personnel of the clinic, must remain on call to assist in emergency
cases. It is the duty of every court employee to discharge the duties of his
office with the highest degree of integrity, loyalty and efficiency.
WHEREFORE, respondent Renato Labay is hereby found GUILTY of inefficiency
in the Performance of his Official Duties and is ordered to pay a FINE
equivalent to two (2) weeks salary, with stern warning that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and
De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Pardo, J., on official leave. Misact