ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
December-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 106949-50 December 1, 1995 - PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109870 December 1, 1995 - EDILBERTO M. CUENCA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115243 December 1, 1995 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117577 December 1, 1995 - ALEJANDRO B. TY, ET AL. v. AURELIO C. TRAMPE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118509 December 1, 1995 - LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1167 December 4, 1995 - NASIB D. YASIN v. AUGUSTO N. FELIX

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1028 December 4, 1995 - REYNATO MANLANGIT v. MELITO L. URGEL

  • G.R. No. 55134 December 4, 1995 - PEDRO PILAPIL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103567 December 4, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO G. SALLE, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104114 December 4, 1995 - LEE CHUY REALTY CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107938 December 4, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABULKHAIR PATAMAMA

  • G.R. No. 108873 December 4, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAURENCE "LARRY" CAJILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120132 December 4, 1995 - CRISANTA GALAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1163 December 6, 1995 - DANILO M. SY v. ISABELITA M. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 80127 December 6, 1995 - ORIENTAL MEDIA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97401 December 6, 1995 - LUIS CASTRO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107729 December 6, 1995 - GEORGE D. JONES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115908-09 December 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANNY GODOY

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-6-02-SB December 7, 1995 - IN RE: SANTOS GONZALES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 83812 December 7, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRICO PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109281 December 7, 1995 - PHIL. TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118114 December 7, 1995 - TEODORO ACAP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120865-71 December 7, 1995 - LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-951146 December 8, 1995 - ARTEMIO R. ALIVIA v. ELENA P. NIETO

  • G.R. No. 103301 December 8, 1995 - SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105720 December 8, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 110801 December 8, 1995 - MARIKINA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NAPOLEON R. FLOJO

  • G.R. Nos. 111962-72 December 8, 1995 - MAXIMINO B. GAMIDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-876 December 11, 1995 - STATE PROSECUTORS v. MANUEL T. MURO

  • G.R. Nos. 84985-86 December 11, 1995 - FOREMOST INCORPORATED v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112206 December 11, 1995 - GONZALO D. LABUDAHON, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114001 December 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY O. ALBERT

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-955 December 12, 1995 - LUCAS M. CASTAÑOS, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO H. ESCAÑO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 100643 December 12, 1995 - ADEZ REALTY, INCORPORATED v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105619 December 12, 1995 - MARIA ROSARIO DE SANTOS v. ADORACION G. ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108072 December 12, 1995 - JUAN M. HAGAD v. MERCEDES GOZODADOLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112438-39 & 113394 December 12, 1995 - CHEMPHIL EXPORT & IMPORT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117487 December 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL B. ALICANDO

  • G.R. No. 118701 December 12, 1995 - PHILIPPINE EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114848 December 14, 1995 - ALEX A. FALGUERA v. CORNELIO L. LINSANGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115156 December 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GO SHIU LING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93233 December 19, 1995 - JAO & COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107756 December 19, 1995 - PAULINO BALBALEC, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107898 December 19, 1995 - MANUEL LIM, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112592 December 19, 1995 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114950 December 19, 1995 - RAFAEL G. SUNTAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115067 December 19, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115213 December 19, 1995 - WILSON DIU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108142 December 26, 1995 - ARCHBUILD MASTERS AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108153 December 26, 1995 - JUAN P. VILLENO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108175 December 26, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JHONIE POLANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109078 December 26, 1995 - WILSON P. YU v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111459 December 26, 1995 - ROGELIO M. BANAWA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114343 December 28, 1995 - ANGELO CAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116702 December 28, 1995 - MUNICIPALITY OF CANDIJAY, BOHOL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-88-269 December 29, 1995 - OSCAR ABETO v. MANUEL GARCESA

  • G.R. No. L-59255 December 29, 1995 - OLIVIA M. NAVOA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73077 December 29, 1995 - ESCOLASTICA MONTESCLAROS SON, ET AL. v. CARMELINO SON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95770 December 29, 1995 - ROEL EBRALINAG, ET AL. v. THE DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100092 December 29, 1995 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE LA CARLOTA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100098 December 29, 1995 - EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103499 December 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REY M. DENIEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109232 December 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANG CHUN KIT

  • G.R. No. 109244 December 29, 1995 - JUAN PULIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109764 December 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ASOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112982 December 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERUNDIO PRADO

  • G.R. No. 113212 December 29, 1995 - DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122338 December 29, 1995 - IN RE: WILFREDO SUMULONG TORRES v. DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

  •  





     
     

    Adm. Matter No. 95-6-02-SB   December 7, 1995 - IN RE: SANTOS GONZALES, JR.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [Adm. Matter No. 95-6-02-SB. December 7, 1995.]

    RE: Report on the Absenteeism/Tardiness of Santos Gonzales, Jr., Sandiganbayan Employee.


    D E C I S I O N


    NARVASA, C.J.:


    By Resolution dated July 18, 1995, this Court — acting on the Second Indorsement dated June 5, 1995 of Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis C. Garchitorena, which transmitted the report of Atty. Luisabel Alfonso Cortez, Executive Clerk of Court IV, regarding the habitual tardiness and absenteeism, etc. of Utility Worker Santos Gonzales, Jr. — referred that matter to a Member of the Sandiganbayan for investigation, report and recommendation, the case being thereafter assigned by raffle to Associate Justice Jose S. Balajadia of the Sandiganbayan. After giving due notice to Santos Gonzales, Jr. of the charges against him, according him ample opportunity to retain counsel, study said charges and traverse them; and receiving evidence on the accusations from both sides, Justice Balajadia submitted his "Report and Recommendations" under date of October 12, 1995. Having deliberated on said report, in relation to the evidence on which it is based; being convinced of the report’s correctness, and impressed with the author’s diligence and thoroughness therein reflected as well as his punctilious regard for the respondent’s rights, the Court approves and adopts the Report in its entirety.

    Justice Balajadia first required Atty. Cortez to submit a "specification of charges" against Santos Gonzales, Jr. together with such writings or sworn statements as were believed to be in substantiation thereof. Accordingly, Atty. Cortez submitted a letter-complaint dated August 24, 1995, to which were appended the originals or certified true copies of her documentary evidence and the sworn statement of a lone witness. In the letter-complaint, six (6) administrative offenses are imputed to Gonzales, namely:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. Tardiness

    2. Undertime

    3. Absenteeism

    4. Late submission of daily time records (DTRs) or violation of reasonable office rules.

    5. Irregular work or neglect of duty, and

    6. Alteration or falsification of entries in the DTR or in the logbook recording the daily time-in and time-out of employees."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Gonzales, in his letter-answer dated September 6, 1995, stated that he did "not intend to contest the charges . . . as he can only plead guilty as charged;" and that since the rule infractions ascribed to him were due to "grave family problems" which had "already been resolved satisfactorily," he could thenceforth "punctually and efficiently attend to his duties and responsibilities in the office."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The documents attached to Atty. Cortez’s letter-complaint of August 24, 1995, consist chiefly of Gonzales’ time records, tabulations showing his absences, tardiness and undertime, the "logbook recording the daily time-in and time-out of employees," memoranda addressed to Gonzales by his superiors and his answers thereto, as well as the affidavit of Mary George T. Cajandab, Clerk III. These were marked and offered as exhibits at the pre-hearing conference by Atty. Renato C. Bocar (Chief, Legal Research and Technical Staff, Sandiganbayan), acting as counsel for Atty. Cortez. With the assistance of his lawyer, Atty. Wenceslao L. Narido, Jr. (of the Public Attorneys Office, Manila District), Gonzales admitted that the exhibits were faithful reproductions of their originals; that the handwriting specifically indicated in some of the exhibits was variously, his own or that of Atty. Cortez; and that the facts set forth in the affidavit of Mary George T. Cajandab were correct.

    Thereafter, Gonzales testified in his defense, narrating the family problems which according to him had caused him to commit the administrative infractions ascribed to him. He closed his testimony with the offer of two documents, to which no objection was made, to prove that "he candidly admitted his tardiness and absences during the periods in question due to the reasons stated therein."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The evidence presented before Justice Balajadia sufficiently confirms his conclusion that during the twelve-month period from May, 1994 to April, 1995, comprising two hundred fifty (250) working days, Gonzales "was late in reporting for work for 161 times . . .; (a)s a result, worked undertime for at least 37 days; and . . . was absent . . . for 52 full days and 6 half-days or a total of 55 days." The evidence further satisfactorily shows that during the same period, and contrary to relevant regulations, Gonzales "did not submit his DTR’s on time and would do so only after repeated reminders by the personnel section of the Sandiganbayan; and that "he was not regularly cleaning the areas assigned to him.

    The Court also agrees with the Investigator that the proofs do not however suffice to support a conclusion that Gonzales was habitually absent, there being no evidence that, except as regards the month of May, 1994, Gonzales had failed to file the corresponding applications for leave of absence. Neither do the proofs suffice to adequately establish that he had willfully altered or falsified entries in the logbook or his DTR’s. Consequently, his plea of guilty to both these charge is, as the Investigator’s Report points out, "ill-advised and imprudent" and should not be made "the basis of conviction for a wrong not demonstrated."cralaw virtua1aw library

    But his proffered defense of "grave family problems" cannot absolve him of the other charges. According to him, because his wife was working outside of the country, he had been constrained to assumed the role of both father and mother to his (2) children, bringing them to and from school. As the Report observes:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The alleged family problems do not explain why Mr. Gonzales was late almost every day, and absent, either full or half day, at least once a month for twelve (12) months during the period from May 1994 to April 1995. May and April were vacation months. Therefore, he could not have been accompanying his children to school early morning. He could not have been attending to his children’s school concerns during all his absence for 55 days. The same family problems do not also explain why he was late in submitting his monthly DTR’s and why he failed to regularly clean the areas assigned to him. His work was manual, not mental."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Gonzales being guilty of four (4) of the six (6) charges or counts presented against him, the penalty to be imposed on him — pursuant to Section 17, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Commission — "shall be that corresponding to the most serious charge or count and the rest may be considered as aggravating circumstances." The same Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations also provides that (Sec. 18 [d])," (w)here aggravating and mitigating circumstances are present, the minimum of the penalty shall be applied when there are more mitigating circumstances present; the medium period if the circumstances equally off-set each other; and the maximum where there are more aggravating circumstances."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Now, the most serious offense proven against Gonzales is tardiness, it being classified as a grave offense punishable by suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense. (Sec. 23, Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules and Regulations). This is the penalty properly imposable on him, conformably with the rules just cited, and the other three (3) infractions of which he is also guilty shall be considered as aggravating circumstances. Appreciating Gonzales’ alleged family problems as a mitigating circumstance in his favor, in addition to his voluntary admission of guilt, would not lighten the imposable penalty, which is the maximum period of that prescribed, as above stated, or ten (10) months and one (1) day to twelve (12) months (derived by dividing the prescribed penalty into three [3] equal periods), the aggravating circumstances still outweighing those pleaded and considered in mitigation.,.

    WHEREFORE, respondent Santos C. Gonzales, Jr., is ABSOLVED of the charges of habitual absences and falsification leveled against him, but is declared GUILTY of the grave offense of habitual tardiness as defined in Section 23, 2nd paragraph, sub-paragraph (q), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Commission, and the two (2) mitigating circumstances conceded to him not being sufficient to offset and negate the three (3) aggravating circumstances against him, he is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the penalty of SUSPENSION for TEN (10) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY.

    SO ORDERED.

    Regalado, Puno, Mendoza and Francisco, JJ., concur.

    Adm. Matter No. 95-6-02-SB   December 7, 1995 - IN RE: SANTOS GONZALES, JR.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED