THIRD DIVISION
|
RE: HABITUAL ABSENTEEISM
OF MS. EVA ROWENA J. YPIL, Court Legal Researcher II, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 143, |
A.M.
No. 07-2-92-RTC
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: July 24, 2007 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
The instant administrative matter
arose from the unauthorized absences incurred by respondent Eva Rowena J. Ypil,
Legal Researcher II, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 143,
2004:
All Disapproved (Unauthorized absences)
September 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 20, 23, 24,
29 11 days
October 4-8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18 10
days
November 2, 4, 8-10, 26 6 days
December 7, 13, 20, 28
4 days
In
her letter[1] dated
On
Respondent explained that in
September 2004, she wanted to report for work but she needed to go on sick
leave of absence because she had not fully recuperated from her sickness. She went on further sick leave of absence in
October 2004 for allegedly the same reason.
Her condition worsened when she suffered from muscular spasm on the left
cheek and left deltoid due to the above contusions and hematoma.[8] In November of the same year, respondent
again went on sick leave of absence because of frequent headaches and pain on
her right nape, allegedly due to hypertension.
Respondent was again absent for several days in December, allegedly due
to loose bowel movement (LBM), uncontrolled hypertension, eye problem, and flu.[9] In January 2005, respondent again went on
sick leave for several days because she suffered from flu, Grave’s disease,
hypertension and she had a thyroid examination.[10] Lastly, in February 2005, respondent went
again on sick leave of absence because of subconjunctival hemorrhage of her
right eye.[11]
Respondent
stressed that her sick leave of absence for the months of September 2004 until
March 2005 did not exceed five (5) consecutive days; hence, there was no need
to submit medical certificates.[12]
Upon
evaluation, the OCA recommended that respondent be suspended from the service
for six (6) months for habitual absenteeism, with a warning that commission of
similar acts in the future will warrant the imposition of a more severe
penalty.[13]
We
agree with the OCA’s evaluation and recommendation.
The
crux of the charge against respondent is her habitual absenteeism. Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23,
Series of 1998, provides:
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. In case of claim of ill health, heads of
departments or 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, in
cases where an employee absents himself from work before approval of the
application, said application should be disapproved.[14]
Records
show that respondent incurred a total of thirty-one (31) unauthorized absences
during the months of September, October, November, and December, 2004, thus,
falling within the definition of habitual absenteeism cited above.
Respondent
claims that her absences are justified because of her poor health condition
brought about by the accident that happened to her when she was mauled, and
suffered multiple contusions and hematoma.
She, likewise, states that during such absences, she was suffering from
LBM, hypertension and Grave’s disease.
She further avers that she timely filed the required sick leave
applications but applications were disapproved by the Presiding Judge on the
ground that the medical certificates submitted were not verified and credible.
Section 15, Rule XVI, of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292 provides:
Section
15. x x x. 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. x x x.[15]
The
rules on applications for sick leave are further laid down in Memorandum
Circular No. 41, Series of 1998, to wit:
Section
53. Applications
for sick leave. – All applications for sick leave of absence for one full
day or more shall be on the prescribed form and shall be filed immediately upon
the employee’s return from such leave.
Notice of absence, however, should be sent to the immediate supervisor
and/or to the agency head. Application
for sick leave in excess of five (5) successive days shall be accompanied by a
proper medical certificate.
Sick
leave may be applied for in advance in cases where the official or employee
will undergo medical examination or operation or be advised to rest in view of
ill health duly supported by a medical certificate.
In
ordinary application for sick leave already taken not exceeding five days, the
head of department or agency concerned may duly determine whether or not the
granting of sick leave is proper under the circumstances. In case of doubt, a medical certificate may
be required.[16]
Approval
of sick leave, whether with pay or without pay, is mandatory as long as proof
of sickness or disability is attached to the application.[17] In the instant case, however, the
respondent’s medical certificate failed to fully support her claim of illness. We would like to emphasize that respondent’s
sick leave applications were evaluated by Dr. Ruñez and Dr. Banzon, both of the
SC Clinic Services. They found the
submitted medical certificates incredible.
It was this finding which the Presiding Judge relied upon. We find no cogent reason to depart from such
finding. The Court likewise notes that,
in a span of four (4) months, from September until December 2004, respondent
had been absent for a total of forty-three (43) days, all because of claims of
ill health.
No
other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral
righteousness and uprightness from an employee than the Judiciary.[18] The Court has stressed that the conduct and
behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of
justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, should be circumscribed
with a heavy burden of responsibility.
As enshrined in the Constitution, public
office is a public trust. Public
officers and employees, must at all times, be accountable to the people, serve
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. This Court cannot countenance any act or
omission which diminishes or tends to diminish the faith of the people in the
Judiciary.[19]
As
pointed out by the OCA, the penalty imposable on her would have been suspension
for six (6) months. However, since she
had already resigned[20]
and the penalty of suspension obviously can no longer be imposed on her, a fine
equivalent to three (3) months’ salary is warranted.[21]
Frequent unauthorized absences without authorization are
inimical to public service, and for this, the respondent must be meted the
proper penalty. Indeed, even with the
fullest measure of sympathy and patience, the Court cannot act otherwise since
the exigencies of government service cannot and should never be subordinated to
purely human equations.[22]
WHEREFORE, respondent Eva Rowena J.
Ypil is found GUILTY of habitual
absenteeism and ORDERED to pay a FINE equivalent to three (3) months’
salary, to be deducted from whatever benefits and/or leave credits may be due
her.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
[1] The letter is considered by this
Court as respondent’s Comment; rollo,
pp. 11-13.
[2] Rollo, pp. 16-18.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Re:
Memorandum Report of Atty. Thelma C. Bahia Against Ms. Dorothy Salgado,
A.M. No. 2004-41-SC, January 13, 2005, 448 SCRA 81, 85; Reyes, Jr. v. Cristi, A.M. No. P-04-1801,
[15] Reyes-Macabeo v. Valle, 448 Phil. 583,
587 (2003); Judge Ortiguerra v. Genota,
Jr., 434 Phil. 787, 791 (2002).
[16] Re:
Unauthorized Absences of Karen R. Cuenca, Clerk II, Property Division-Office of
Administrative Services, A.M. No. 2005-03-SC,
[17]
[18] Domingo-Regala
v. Sultan, A.M. No. P-05-1940,
[19] Re: Memorandum Report of Atty. Thelma C. Bahia
Against Ms. Dorothy Salgado, supra note 14, at 86; Reyes, Jr. v. Cristi, supra note 14, at 14.
[20]
Per respondent’s letter dated
[21] Reyes,
Jr. v. Cristi, supra, at 14.
[22] Re: Unauthorized Absences of Karen R. Cuenca,
Clerk II, Property Division-Office of Administrative Services, supra note
16, at 409.