ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 138699.July 13, 1999]

BENEDICTA YABUT vs. ERESTAIN, JR.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 13, 1999 .

G.R. No. 138699(Benedicta Yabut vs. Hon. Corazon Alma G. De Leon, Hon. Thelma P. Gaminde & Hon Jose F. Erestain, Jr., in their capacity as Members of the Civil Service Commission, et al.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the resolution of the Civil Service Commission, thereby holding that petitioner committed acts grossly prejudicial to the best interests of the service when she defied the National Statistics Office's (NSO) office rules and regulation prohibiting personal pass during overtime services and for wilfully and knowingly allowing a number of her subordinates to leave their work during overtime service hour.

On August 28, 1993, the NSO Administrator discovered certain employees, who were supposed to be rendering Saturday overtime service, were actually outside the office premises. This incident prompted the NSO Administrator to create a committee to investigate regular compliance with overtime services for the above stated date.

The committee discovered that on said date, petitioner, who is a Section Chief, arrived at the office and punched in her time card at 10 o'clock in the morning. Immediately thereafter, petitioner, together with five subordinates, went out to attend a wedding and returned at past 1 P.M., but all that time intervening, petitioner's time card was marked "IN". In consequence, the NSO fined petitioner in an amount equivalent to two months' salary.

Only petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission which increased the penalty imposed by the NSO to a fine equivalent to 6 months' salary.

Dissatisfied, petitioner filed a petition with the Court of Appeals but the same proved unavailing.

Thus, the instant petition which must likewise fail.

Petitioner claims that the Civil Service Commission violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution when she was meted the penalty of fine of six months' salary while her co-employees and associates who committed the same violation were meted lesser penalties ranging from reprimand to a fine of one month's salary.

Verily, it bears stressing that petitioner occupies the position of Section Chief and as such, she is required to behave beyond reproach. Furthermore, she is to set an example for her subordinates in observing office rules. In influencing her subordinates to register their presence in the office before leaving to attend a wedding ceremony deprived the government of their required services. The Court is not inclined to consider this offense to be of the same gravity as those of her subordinates.

It should also be noted that the penalty imposed is within the range provided in Section 21(t) of Rule XIV of Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 which provides:

Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interests of the service

1st Offense - Suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year.

The penalty of fine equivalent to 6 months' salary imposed on petitioner is likewise in conformity with Section 19, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules which states that the "penalty of transfer, demotion, or fine may be imposed instead of suspension from one month and one day to one year except in case of fine which shall not exceed six (6) months".

WHEREFORE , petition is dismissed.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Assistant Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE