|
JUDGE
ILUMINADA P. CABATO, Complainant, - versus - |
A.M.
No. P-08-2572 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2950-P) Present: QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. |
|
FELIX
S. CENTINO, Process Server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Respondent. |
Promulgated: November
19, 2008 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
RESOLUTION
QUISUMBING, J.:
Before the
Court is the complaint[1]
of Judge Iluminada P. Cabato of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 59,
It
appears that Centino was absent for 10.5 days in May 2006, 6 days in April
2006, 8.5 days in March 2006, 8.5 days in February 2006, and 31.5 days in
2005. On
Judge Cabato alleged that Centino’s indifference to her
memoranda and failure to submit the required applications for leave and DTRs
constitute gross misconduct and serious misbehavior.[4] Attached to her complaint were copies of the
attendance log sheets[5]
of the RTC, Branch 59, and a certification[6]
issued by the RTC Clerk of Court that Centino submitted his last DTR in October
2005 and last applications for leave on September 9 and 16, 2005.
In his comment, Centino averred that
he tried to reconstruct his DTR and leave application forms, but could not
locate his records anymore. He sought
forgiveness for his failure to apply for leave of absence and submit his DTR
from February to May 2006, citing serious domestic problems with his wife and
children as reason for noncompliance with Civil Service rules. He vowed not to repeat his violation and
stressed that he has, in fact, reported back to work since November 2006 and
has regularly complied with the rules.
He likewise pleaded for compassion in view of his 22 years of service.[7]
It likewise appears on record that on
Acting on this information, the OCA,
Leave Division, informed Centino that his leave applications were acted upon as
follows: his absence for 21 days from June 1 to 30, 2006 were credited to his
available sick leave credits, while his absence for 167.5 days from February 1
to May 31 and from July 1 to October 31, 2006 were treated as vacation leave
without pay.[9] The OCA, Leave Division, also issued a
certification that Centino incurred 22 unauthorized absences in August 2006, 21
in September 2006 and 7 in November 2006.[10]
On
We adopt
the recommendation.
Centino
incurred more than 2.5 days of unauthorized absences per month for four months
in the first semester of 2006. As borne
by the records and detailed in Judge Cabato’s first memorandum, Centino was
absent for 8.5 days in February 2006, 8.5 days in March 2006, 6 days in April
2006 and 10.5 days in May 2006. Centino
admitted he did not seek approval for these absences. The RTC Clerk of Court also certified that
Centino filed his last application for leave in September 2005.
Under
Section 23(q)[12]
of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations,[13]
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 credit under the Leave Law for at least three months in a
semester or at least three consecutive months during the year.
Administrative
Circular No. 14-2002[14]
reiterates the said Civil Service rule on habitual absenteeism. Worth stressing, by reason of the nature and
functions of their office, officials and employees of the judiciary must
faithfully observe the constitutional canon that public office is a public
trust. This duty calls for the
observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of official time
for public service, if only to recompense the government, and ultimately, the
people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the judiciary. Thus, to inspire public respect for the
justice system, court officials and employees should at all times strictly
observe official time. As punctuality is
a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.[15]
Under
Administrative Circular No. 14-2002 and Section 23(q) of the Omnibus Civil
Service Rules and Regulations, habitual absenteeism is penalized by suspension
for six months and one day to one year for the first offense. Nonetheless, we agree with the lower penalty proposed
by the OCA. The OCA aptly considered
Centino’s act to reform as a mitigating circumstance. As confirmed by Judge Cabato, Centino has
returned to work, reports regularly, and submits his DTR and leave applications.
This is not the first time that we imposed a lower
penalty. We have mitigated the imposable
penalty for humanitarian reasons. We
have also considered length of service in the judiciary, acknowledgment of
infraction, remorse, and family circumstances in determining the penalty.[16] Here, we considered Centino’s length of
service, acknowledgment of his infraction, and apology to determine the
appropriate penalty. However, these
additional mitigating circumstances cannot further affect the penalty recommended
by the OCA because they are offset by Centino’s disobedience to Judge Cabato’s
orders and the sheer number of his absences which could have resulted in his
separation from the service. Centino’s
vacation leave without pay totaled 167.5 days from February 1 to May 31 and
from July 1 to
WHEREFORE, we find Felix S. Centino, Process
Server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Baguio City, GUILTY of habitual absenteeism, and SUSPEND him for three months without pay effective upon notice hereof. He is STERNLY
WARNED that the same or similar act or acts of disobedience in the future
will be dealt with more severely.
To enable us to determine the effectivity of the penalty
imposed, Centino is DIRECTED to
report the date of his receipt of this Resolution to this Court.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo,
pp. 5-7.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Id at 134.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] SEC 23.
Administrative offenses with its (sic) corresponding penalties are classified
into grave, less grave, and light, depending on the gravity of its (sic) nature
and effects of said acts on the government service.
The following are grave offenses with its corresponding penalties:
x x x x
(q) Frequent unauthorized absences or tardiness in reporting for duty, loafing or frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours
1st Offense – Suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year
2nd Offense – Dismissal
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 credit under the Leave Law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive months during the year.
x x x x
[13] Implementing
Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws. Effective
[14] Reiterating
the Civil Service Commission’s Policy on Habitual Absenteeism, issued by
former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
Effective
[15] Re: Habitual Absenteeism of Mr. Fernando P.
Pascual, A.M. No. 2005-16-SC,
[16] Re: Habitual Absenteeism of Mr. Fernando P.
Pascual, id. at 573.
[17] Sec. 57. Limit of leave without pay. – Leave without pay not exceeding one year may be granted, in addition to the vacation and/or sick leave earned. Leave without pay in excess of one month shall require the clearance of the proper head of department or agency.
[18] Rule
XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292.
[19] As reduced by one day.
[20] Sec. 63. Effect of absences without approved leave. – An official or an employee who is continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) working days shall be considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls…
x x x x