A.M. No. P-02-1645 - Atienza vs. Dinampo

Gilbert Howard M. Atienza, Clerk of Court III of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Batangas City, filed a letter-complaint on March 2, 2001, against Josephine V. Dinampo, a Court Stenographer II.

The complaint arose from allegations that Dinampo committed unauthorized absences without filing proper applications for leave.

Dinampo was absent from work from January 18, 2001 to February 21, 2001 and again from February 27, 2001 to March 2, 2001.

Prior warnings existed regarding her irregular attendance, and a concerned employee also reported charges of absenteeism, tardiness, and inefficiency.

The absence caused an increase in workload for fellow stenographers, which in turn delayed the transcription of court records.

On January 25, 2001, a message relayed by her husband cited illness as a reason for her absence; however, no formal leave application or notification was submitted.

Dinampo eventually reported for work on February 22, 2001, without offering a satisfactory explanation for her prolonged absence.

Upon her return, she attempted to have Atienza validate her daily time records and retroactively file applications for leave, but Atienza declined, upholding the basis of his complaint.

A later observation noted that despite her subsequent regular attendance, her applications for leave covering multiple periods—ranging from January to March 2001—had all been disapproved by the branch clerk of court, thus reinforcing her status as being absent without official leave.

The complaint was referred on March 14, 2001, to Executive Judge Ruben A. Galvez for investigation.

In his April 2, 2001 report, Judge Galvez confirmed that the absences were substantiated by official records.

Although Dinampo resumed regular attendance after the investigation began, the initial violations of service rules remained evident.

The investigation underscored that even though she made a belated effort to correct her record by filing applications for leave, such attempts did not rectify or excuse the initial non-compliance with attendance regulations.

The disciplinary framework is governed by Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, which provides that an official absent without approved leave for at least 30 calendar days is considered AWOL and liable for separation from service.

Memorandum Circular No. 41, series of 1998, was also cited, which stipulates that any unauthorized absence disqualifies the employee from receiving the corresponding salary for that period.

The case prominently highlights that public office is a public trust requiring accountability, responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency from its officers.

Whether the repeated absences without approved leave by the court stenographer constituted malfeasance in office.
Whether Dinampo’s belated attempt to file applications for leave and her subsequent return to work should mitigate the severity of her offense.
Whether the disciplinary measures prescribed under the Civil Service Rules and the associated memorandum were properly applied in this instance.
The extent to which her unauthorized absences affected the operational efficiency of the court and the overall integrity of the public office.