Case Digest (G.R. No. 249126)
Facts:
Civil Service Commission v. Marilyn L. Gagabuan, G.R. No. 249126, September 29, 2021, the Supreme Court Second Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is the Civil Service Commission (CSC); respondent is Marilyn L. Gagabuan, a Revenue Collection Clerk I of the Municipality of Gen. MacArthur, Eastern Samar.On May 9, 2011 the Municipal Mayor endorsed a complaint to CSC Regional Office No. VIII (CSCRO VIII) attaching Gagabuan’s Daily Time Records and a Summary of Tardiness; investigation showed 85 instances of tardiness from July 2010 to March 2011, docketed as CSCRO8 ADC No. 11-048 for Frequent Unauthorized Tardiness under Section 52(A)(17) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS). A separate complaint received September 12, 2011 found 72 instances of tardiness from January to June 2010, docketed as CSCRO8 ADC No. 11-120 under Section 46(B)(5) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS). Gagabuan admitted repeated tardiness and argued it had been offset against her leave credits.
On April 14, 2016, CSCRO VIII issued Decision No. 16-0010 (ADC No. 11-048) finding Gagabuan guilty of Unauthorized Tardiness and imposing suspension for six months. On April 19, 2016, CSCRO VIII issued Decision No. 16-0014 (ADC No. 11-120) finding her guilty of Frequent Unauthorized Tardiness and, as a second offense, imposing dismissal from service. Instead of filing motions for reconsideration before CSCRO VIII, Gagabuan filed a petition for review with the CSC (docketed D-2016-08022).
On March 5, 2017 the CSC in Decision No. 170225 affirmed both CSCRO VIII rulings (suspension then dismissal); its May 16, 2017 Resolution denied reconsideration. Gagabuan elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its January 28, 2019 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 151505 the CA modified the penalties: in ADC No. 11-048 it treated the offense as Habitual Tardiness under URACCS Section 52(C)(4) and imposed a reprimand; in ADC No. 11-120 it treated the offense as Habitual Tardiness under RRACCS Section 46(F)(4) and imposed suspension for thirty (30) days. The CA relied on mitigating circumstances (acknowledgment, remorse, solo-parent status, length of service) and precedent treating habitual tardiness as a light offense in certain cases. The CSC, through the Office o...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in classifying Marilyn L. Gagabuan’s habitual tardiness as a light offense and in reducing the penalties to a reprimand (ADC No. 11-048) and suspension for thirty days (ADC N...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)