[Adm. Matter No. P-94-1075. July 14, 1995.

]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. LOLITA A.
GRECIA, Utility Worker, I, MTCC, General Santos City, respondent.

This administrative matter has detained the Court so long and has imposed upon its time
so much that the same must now be brought to its logical termination. On the one hand,
however, the attention given by this Court to this case vividly illustrates how, regardless
of status in life and rank in the service, the Court always deals with the members of the
judiciary with an even hand and equal concern, for of such, after all, is the essence of
adjudicatory justice.

The antecedents of this punitive proceeding are documented and undisputed to the point
that the report of complainant Office of the Court Administrator on those aspects need
merely he reproduced:

>>Pursuant to the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated August 18, 1994, the Office of
the Court Administrator filed Administrative Complaint against Mrs. Lolita Alfafara
Grecia, Utility Worker I, MTCC, Branch 1, General Santos City, charging her with
Neglect of Duty and Habitual Unauthorized Absences committed as follows:

1. On May 25, 1983, Mr. Eligio G. Ganer, Branch Clerk of Court, MTCC, Branch 1,
General Santos City, issued a Memorandum to Ms. Lolita Alfafara, Staff Aide, same
court, directing her not to (a) neglect her cleaning duties such as removing the cobwebs
and dust on the ceiling of the court room aside from cleaning the court room and (b) incur
more unauthorized absences, which for May, 1983 alone reached up to four (4)
unauthorized absences;
2. On August 1, 1983, Mr. Ganer recommended to A Atty. Benito M. Claudio, Clerk
of Court, MTCC, General Santos City, that Ms. Alfafara be suspended without pay for
fifteen (15) days for incurring a total of seventeen (17) unauthorized absences from May
to July, 1983;
3. On September 26, 1983, Atty. Benito Claudio formally brought to the attention of
Judge Romerico P. Vencer, Executive Judge, MTCC, General Santos City, the continuous
absences without leave of Ms. Alfafara. She was reported to have also absented herself
from September 19 to 24 and 26, 1983;
4. On August 1, 1989, Judge Jose S. Majaducon, MTCC, Branch 1, General Santos
City, issued to former Ms. Alfafara, now Mrs. Grecia, a memorandum warning her of her
numerous unjustified absences;
5. On October 2, 1992, Judge Majaducon again issued Mrs. Grecia a memorandum
this time requiring her to explain within 72 hours from its receipt why no disciplinary
action should be taken against her for (a) reporting late and going home early for 16 days
of September, 1992; (b) for incurring 3 1/2 days unauthorized absences for September,
1992; (c) failure to clean the court room and offices; and (d) leaving work without
permission and found gallivanting and gossiping in other offices;
6. On June 17, 1993, Judge Majaducon, together with Mr. Ganer and Ms. Veronica
A. Canonigo, Clerk of Court III, same court, recommended to the Court Administrator
that Mrs. Grecia be dismissed from the service on the ground of inefficiency -- she had
always been absenting herself from work that other court personnel had to do her work.
Attached to their letter was a summary of her unauthorized absences which is as follows:
January 1993 --- 2 days
February 1993 --- 6 days
March 1993 --- 5 days
April 1993 --- 4 days
May 1993 --- 3 days
June 1-17 1993 --- 10 l/2 days
7. On October 8, 1993, Arty Baumaun, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief
Administrative officer, this Court, wrote Mrs. Grecia requiring her to explain within five
(5) days from receipt why she should not be dropped from the rolls for being
continuously absent from June 1, 1993;
8. On November 16, 1993, Judge Majaducon informed Mrs. Rowena Castro-
Benipayo that Atty. Baumann's letter was served on Mrs. Grecia's husband who, in the
accompanying Certificate of Service, stated that "the whereabouts of his wife is not also
known to him;"
9. On February 11, 1994,- Judge Majaducon recommended that Mrs. Grecia be
dismissed from the service in reply to Arty. Baumann's letter dated January 25, 1994
asking for his recommendation re Mrs. Grecia.

This is not a mere case of frequent unauthorized absences within a localized period of
time, e.g., a one (1) year period. This is a case of CONTINUOUS VIOLATION
Frequent Unauthorized Absences of the Civil Service Law if we take into account that
her absences span a period of at the very least ten (10) years, i.e., May of 1983 to June of
1993.
It should be noted that Section 23, paragraph (b) of the abovementioned rules provides
that a civil service employee found guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty is meted the penalty
of Dismissal for the FIRST offense.

Everytime respondent absents herself without permission from her superiors, she also
neglects her duty of cleaning the court room and court offices. This has been going on
repeatedly for also ten (10) years.
By her own admission, respondent Grecias a public officer and public servant, "has been
remiss in the performance of the duties of her office which demands utmost dedication
and efficiency."
[A.M. No. P-01-1475. October 17, 2003]
JUDGE MANUEL R. AQUINO, complainant, vs. JOCELYN C. FERNANDEZ,
Stenographer I, respondent.

Sec. 49. Period within which to act on leave application. - Whenever the application for
leave of absence, including terminal leave, is not acted upon by the head of agency or his
duly authorized representative within five (5) working days after receipt thereof, the
application for leave of absence shall be deemed approved.

Sec. 50. Effect of unauthorized leave. - An official/employee who is absent without

approved leave shall not be entitled to receive his salary corresponding to the period of
his unauthorized leave of absence. It is understood, however, that his absence shall no
longer be deducted from his accumulated leave credits, if there is any. (Emphasis
supplied).

The reason for the requirement that employees applying for vacation leave, whenever
possible, must submit in advance their applications for vacation leave, is to enable heads
of offices to make the necessary adjustments in the work assignments among the staff so
that work may not be hampered or paralyzed.[14] However, it is clear from the above-
quoted rules that mere failure to file a leave of absence in advance does not ipso facto
render an employee administratively liable. In case the application for vacation leave of
absence is filed after the employee reports back to work but disapproved by the head of
the agency, then, under Section 50 as quoted above, the employee shall not be entitled to
receive his salary corresponding to the period of his unauthorized leave of absence. The
unauthorized leave of absence becomes punishable only if the absence is frequent or
habitual under Section 23 (q), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and
Regulations or detrimental to the service under Section 23 (r) or the official or employee
falsified his daily time record under Section 23 (a) or (f) of the same Omnibus Civil
Service Rules.

In this case, complainant Judge merely alleged that respondent did not file any prior leave
of absence. This, we find insufficient to discipline respondent. There is no claim or
evidence showing that respondent did not file her leave of absence after reporting for
work, or that complainant Judge disapproved her leave of absence, or that her absence
was inimical to the interest of public service, or that she falsified her daily time record to
cover up her absence. Moreover, the absences of respondent occurred two years apart
which can hardly be categorized as frequent or habitual.

Sections 53 and 54 provide for the action to be taken by the agency head in case of
application for sick leave. In the present case, it does not appear in the complaint that the
absence of herein respondent was due to illness.
[A.M. No. P-01-1521. November 11, 2003]
OFFICE of the Court Administrator, represented by Asst. Court Administrator
Antonio H. Dujua, complainant, vs. GREGORIO M. Mallare, LYDIA M.
BUENCAMINO, JOAQUIN L. CALUAG, JR., LUCIA D. CALUAG, MA.
CRISTINA A. DE JESUS, FRANCISCA H. GALVEZ, FLORANTE T.
NATIVIDAD, SR., SHERWIN P. BARTOLOME, WALTER M. ESTAMO, and
MARTIN BARRY P. MAGNO, all of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos,
Bulacan, Branch 76, respondents.

On October 19, 2000, the members of the Supreme Court Committee on the Halls of
Justice (HOJ), including Assistant Court Administrator (ACA) Antonio H. Dujua,
conducted an ocular inspection of the different Regional Trial Courts in Malolos, Bulacan
and Angeles City, Pampanga. When they inspected the courts in Malolos, Bulacan at
about 8:30 a.m., they observed that there were only a few Court employees in the
different branches who were present in their respective places of work.

In Branch 76 of the RTC presided by Judge Rolando P. Jurado, only the sheriff of the
said branch was in the Office. Upon inquiry, the Committee Members learned that Judge
Jurado was on leave, and was in the United States. the daily time records (DTR) of the
rest of the Court personnel, based on the entries in the said records, indicated that the
Court employees reported to work before 8:00 a.m. that day, but were not in their posts.
the employees (herein respondents) made the following entries in their DTR:

The CSC rules define loafing as frequent unauthorized absences from duty during
Office hours.[8] the word frequent connotes that the employees absent themselves
from duty more than once. Apparently, this case was the first time that a random check
was conducted by the members of the SC Committee on HOJ, and was likewise the first
time that the respondents were caught outside their respective posts during Office hours.
There is no evidence on record that the respondents had been absent from duty on prior
occasions. the Investigating Judge did not find them to be absent on other occasions
during Office hours as well. Nor were there any complaints from their superiors, Atty.
Barranta or Judge Jurado, that the respondents were absent or were not in their posts on
several occasions.

The respondents absence from duty when the Committee members made their surprise
inspection should, therefore, be considered as a first infraction. Indeed, the performance
ratings of the respondents do not reveal such delinquency on their part as to merit the
penalty of suspension. Judge Jurado even testified that his employees were competent
and trustworthy. It is thus erroneous to conclude that the respondents were guilty of
loafing or frequently absent from duty during regular Office hours on the basis of
this single circumstance only, as the same is barren of factual basis.

IN VIEW of the FOREGOING, (1) respondents Gregorio M. Mallare, Lydia M.

Buencamino, Francisco H. Galvez, Florante T. Natividad, Sr., Sherwin P. Bartolome, are
found guilty of misconduct and are hereby SEVERELY REPRIMANDED with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely; (2) the complaint against respondents Joaquin L. Caluag, Jr., Lucia D. Caluag,
Martin Barry P. Magno, Ma. Cristina A. de Jesus, and Walter Estamo is DISMISSED; and
(3) Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Eusebio Barranta is, ADMONISHED for his negligence
and failure to maintain close supervision over his subordinates, with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.