April 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. P-11-2899 : April 23, 2012]
LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. FILIGRIN E. VELEZ, JR., PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, TANGUB CITY
A.M. No. P-11-2899 (Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Filigrin E. Velez, Jr., Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tangub City).
RESOLUTION
In his letter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated March 1, 2010,[1] Judge Rodolfo D. Vapor of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Tangub City claims that, based on the court's attendance logbook, respondent Filigrin E. Velez, Jr., the court's process server, incurred for the 1st semester of Calendar Year (CY) 2009, 10 late attendances in January and 13 in February. The OCA, on the other hand, claims that Velez incurred 12 late attendances in January and 16 in February. But, looking at the records,[2] he actually incurred 12 late attendances in January and only 13 in February.
On seeing the daily time cards for the second half of CY 2009, Judge Vapor noted and confirmed that Velez had incurred absences from work without approved application for leave in July and August 2009. On September 1, 2009 Judge Vapor directed Velez to return to work.[3] In response, Velez reported for work on September 16 and 17 but resumed his absence from September 18, 2009 to January 17, 2010.
Meantime, on October 14, 2009 Judge Vapor wrote Velez a letter,[4] requiring him to explain in writing within three days from receipt of the letter why he should not be dropped from the rolls without prior notice or be separated from the service. Velez received the letter on the same day but did not submit any explanation.
Two months later or on December 15, 2009 Velez submitted applications for leave corresponding to the period July to November 2009. But Judge Vapor recommended the disapproval of the application and the dropping of Velez from the rolls for his absences without official leave. Meantime, Velez reported back to work on January 18, 2010. Judge Vapor declined to take him back, however, and refused to sign his daily time record.
In his letter-explanation[5] to the OCA dated June 18, 2010, Velez admitted reporting late for work and incurring the absences mentioned without an approved application for leave. But he pleaded for forgiveness and consideration. He explained that he reported late for work because he lived in Clarin, Misamis Occidental, which was one and a half hours by public transportation from Tangub City. During those days, he deemed it more convenient to serve the processes assigned to him before reporting for work.
As regards his absences from July to December 2009, Velez claims that he suffered recurrent dizziness as well as shivering and fevers, preventing him from coming to work.
In her memorandum of September 13, 2010, Atty. Caridad A. Pabello, OCA Chief of Office, expressed the Legal Office's view that Velez could no longer be dropped from the rolls since he actually reported back to work on January 18, 2010. Further, on referral of Velez's sick leave applications for the period July to December 31, 2009 to the Supreme Court medical services, Senior Medical Officer Celeste P. Vista, M.D. recommended the approval of Velez's sick leave applications corresponding to the period October 7 to November 4, 2009 and December 1 to 31, 2009.
In his report to the Court on October 5, 2010, Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez recommended: (a) that Velez's case be re-docketed as a regular administrative case; and (b) that he be suspended from the service for six months and severely warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Except for a need to make a small adjustment in the penalty, the Court wholly agrees with the OCA's findings.
An employee is habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness regardless of number of minutes, 10 times a month for at least two months in a semester or at least two consecutive months during the year.[6] And he 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 months in a semester or at least three consecutive months during the year.[7] Here, Velez has incurred enough absences and tardiness to be considered habitually absent and tardy.
Velez explained that the reason for his absences and tardiness is his poor health. But the Court has consistently ruled that reasons like health conditions and other domestic concerns are not sufficient to excuse habitual tardiness or absences.[8] Besides, as the OCA correctly pointed out, his explanation does not merit consideration because it did not excuse him from filing his required leave application on time.
The penalty under Civil Service Memorandum Circular 30, Series of 1989, for habitual absenteeism, if a first offense, is six months and one day to one year. Consequently, the recommended penalty of a straight penalty of six months suspension needs a small adjustment.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Filigrin E. Velez, Jr., Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tangub City, guilty of habitual absences and habitual tardiness and accordingly, orders him SUSPENDED for six months and one day with severe warning that a repetition of the same acts will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 29-36.[2] Id. at 92-100 (including its dorsal sides).
[3] Id. at 42.
[4] Id. at 55.
[5] Id. at 232.
[6] Section 15, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292.
[7] Memorandum Circular 4, Series of 1991 of the Civil Service Commission.
[8] Re: Habitual Tardiness by Mr. Gideon M. Alibang, 476 Phil. 1, 5 (2004).
