FIRST DIVISION
|
ABSENCE WITHOUT OFFICIAL LEAVE (AWOL) OF ALBERTO
V. MONSANTO, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, CATBALOGAN, |
|
A.M. No. P-06-2183
(Formerly A.M. No. 06-5-157-MTC) Present: PANGANIBAN, C.J., YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CALLEJO,
SR., CHICO-NAZARIO,
Promulgated: June 27, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This
administrative matter concerns Alberto V. Monsanto, Utility Worker I of the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Catbalogan,
Records at the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) of
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Leave Section showed that Mr.
Alberto V. Monsanto failed to submit his Daily Time Records (DTRs)/Bundy Cards
from the month of May 2005 up to present.
Neither has he filed any leave application.
On
On 5 October 2005, OAS requested the Honorable Odelon Mabutin, Presiding Judge of the same court, to cause the
service of a warning letter to Mr. Monsanto.
In the said warning letter, Mr. Monsanto was required to explain in
writing his unauthorized absences, otherwise, his dropping from the rolls shall
be recommended to the Court.
In the Agenda Report[2]
dated
To date, Mr.
Monsanto has not reported back for work.
Neither has he complied with any of the directives of the OCA.
On
The
recommendation is proper under the circumstances. Mr. Monsanto falls within the
purview of Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and
Regulations, as amended, stating thus:
Sec. 63. Effect of absences without approval leave. – An official or an employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. He shall, however, be informed, at his address appearing on his 201 files of his separation from the service, not later than five (5) days from its effectivity.
The above provision does not require
prior notice to drop from the rolls the name of the employee who has been
continuously absent without approved leave for at least 30 days.[4] Defying the express directive of the Court
for Mr. Monsanto to report back to work, he chose not to report for work since
Mr. Monsanto’s AWOL prejudiced public service. Time and again, this Court has made the
pronouncement that any act which falls short of the existing standards for
public service, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image
of the judiciary, shall not be countenanced. Public
office is a public trust. Public
officers must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. A court employee’s AWOL for a prolonged
period of time constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public
service and warrants the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture
of benefits.[5]
We have repeatedly held that
the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the
dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility. This Court cannot
countenance any act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration
of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish
and even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[6]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Mr. Alberto V.
Monsanto, Utility Worker I of the Municipal Trial Court of Catbalogan,
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, p. 7.
[2]
[3]
[4] Lameyra v. Mayor Pangilinan, 379 Phil. 116, 123 (2000).
[5] Judge Loyao, Jr. v. Manatad, 387 Phil. 337, 344 (2000), citing Judge Masadao, Jr. v. Glorioso, 345 Phil. 859, 864 (1997).
[6] Re: Absence Without Official Leave of Jacoba, 362 Phil. 486, 489 (1999).