Facts:

In the case of Judge Leah Domingo-Regala, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 226, Quezon City, vs. Ma. Donna Y. Sultan, a Legal Researcher at the same court, the complainant Judge Regala charged the respondent with serious administrative offenses, including inefficiency, habitual absenteeism, tardiness, falsification of daily time record, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the service. The Court Administrator, Bernardo T. Ponferrada, sent a referral letter dated May 12, 2000, highlighting Sultan's unauthorized leaves of absence from October to December 1999. Following this, Judge Regala filed a comment on June 5, 2000, asserting that Sultan's absences exceeded her allowable leave credits, leading to habitual absenteeism under Administrative Circular No. 1-91.

Sultan had reportedly incurred numerous unauthorized absences exceeding 2.5 days per month across several months. Further allegations included chronic tardiness, with Sultan purportedly signing the logbook at ti

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Ma. Donna Y. Sultan, a Legal Researcher at Regional Trial Court, Branch 226, Quezon City, was charged with multiple administrative offenses including inefficiency, habitual absenteeism, tardiness, falsification of Daily Time Record, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the service.
• The case stemmed from a referral letter dated 12 May 2000 sent by Court Administrator Bernardo T. Ponferrada to Judge Leah Domingo-Regala, raising concerns over unauthorized absences occurring on several dates:

- 1–29 October 1999 - 3–29 November 1999 - Specific dates in December 1999 (1–3 and 06 December)

Allegations and Findings

• Habitual Absenteeism

- Judge Regala alleged that respondent incurred unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly credit for three consecutive months (or three months in a semester), as specified under Administrative Circular No. 1-91. - Detailed attendance records showed exceeding absences in various months, notably 21 days in October 1999, 19 days in November 1999, and additional absences in December 1999. - It was observed that respondent repeatedly went on extended leave without filing the proper applications for leave in advance. - It was alleged that respondent was habitually tardy, signing the office logbook with a time earlier than her actual arrival. - Observations indicated that she would leave the office prematurely (around 11:00 a.m.) to take extended lunch breaks and return well after 2:00 p.m. - Complainant claimed that respondent was unable to perform proper legal research, failed to locate relevant case laws or the latest jurisprudence, and resorted to copying directly from textbooks. - Judge Regala noted that respondent (a law graduate) was slow to learn, required frequent instruction, and had difficulty adjusting to new tasks and work methods. - It was alleged that during an extended leave in October 1999, respondent misled her colleagues by falsely implying that her daughter was confined at Malvar General Hospital. - Additional allegations included respondent engaging in long telephone conversations and frequent interactions with lawyers and litigants during office hours. - Respondent admitted to the unauthorized absences but explained that apart from October to December 1999, all other absences were authorized and properly documented. - She attributed her prolonged unauthorized absences to a serious family crisis involving her unwed, student daughter who was pregnant; further complications included the daughter’s illness after giving birth. - Respondent also asserted that prior to the crisis, her performance and approved leave applications had never been an issue.

Investigation and Procedural History

• The matter was referred by the OCA for an investigation due to the complexity of the issues presented.

- The investigation was initially handled by Judge Monina Arevalo ZeAarosa, then by Judge Catral Mendoza, and subsequently by Judge Natividad Giron Dizon. - Eventually, Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr. of Branch 103 was designated as the investigating judge. - In his Resolution and Recommendation dated 19 November 2002, Investigating Judge Salazar found respondent liable for incompetence and habitual absenteeism; however, he cleared her of the charges of habitual tardiness, falsification of the daily time record, and conduct prejudicial to the service for lack of sufficient evidence. - The OCA, in a report dated 19 October 2004, affirmed the findings on inefficiency and habitual absenteeism but overturned the recommendation absolving her from the charge of conduct prejudicial to the service. - A judicial review of the administrative findings highlighted that the unauthorized absences in October, November, and December 1999 met the threshold for habitual absenteeism and that the misconduct extended to inefficiency and prejudicial behavior.

Administrative and Disciplinary Action

• Based on the evidence and the administrative circulars (including Administrative Circular No. 14-2002 and Memorandum Circular No. 04, s. 1991), respondent’s offenses were classified as grave, carrying penalties ranging from six months and one day to one year.
• Given the sanctions typically applicable, the disciplinary recommendation originally was for suspension; however, considerations were taken into account due to:

- The mitigating circumstances (serious family emergency, open admission of mistakes, and this being her first offense). - A historical performance rating that included a previously “Very Satisfactory” evaluation.

Issue:

Whether the unauthorized leaves and absences committed by respondent constitute habitual absenteeism under the administrative rules applicable to government employees.

• The determination focused on whether respondent exceeded the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three consecutive or three months in a semester.

Whether respondent’s conduct in terms of tardiness, alleged falsification of time records, and being out of the office during work hours amounted to inefficiency and conduct prejudicial to the service.

• This includes assessing the reliability of the logbook entries and whether early sign-ins invalidate the actual arrival times.

Whether the observed incompetence in performing her assigned research duties met the threshold for an administrative finding of inefficiency.

• The issue centers on whether a law graduate lacking advanced research acumen but expecting guidance should be excused for poor performance.
• Whether the explanation of a serious family crisis and the consequent failure to secure proper approval for leave can be a valid mitigating circumstance that justifies a lighter penalty.
• Whether the disciplinary action of suspension for three months without pay appropriately reflects both the gravity of the offense and the mitigating circumstances presented.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)