Case Digest (A.M. No. 95-6-02-SB)
Facts:
Re: Report on the Absenteeism/Tardiness of Santos Gonzales, Jr., Sandiganbayan Employee, A.M. No. 95-6-02-SB, December 07, 1995, Supreme Court Second Division, Narvasa, C.J., writing for the Court.
The matter originated from a transmission by Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis C. Garchitorena (Second Indorsement dated June 5, 1995) of a report by Atty. Luisabel Alfonso Cortez, Executive Clerk of Court IV, concerning alleged habitual tardiness and absenteeism of Utility Worker Santos C. Gonzales, Jr. The Supreme Court, by Resolution dated July 18, 1995, referred the complaint to a Member of the Sandiganbayan for investigation, and the case was raffled to Associate Justice Jose S. Balajadia to investigate, report and recommend.
Justice Balajadia required a specification of charges, whereupon Atty. Cortez submitted a letter-complaint dated August 24, 1995 attaching documentary evidence (time records, tabulations, the logbook of daily time-in/time-out, memoranda and responses) and the sworn statement of Mary George T. Cajandab, Clerk III. The letter-complaint charged Gonzales with six administrative offenses: (1) tardiness; (2) undertime; (3) absenteeism; (4) late submission of daily time records (DTRs)/violation of office rules; (5) irregular work or neglect of duty; and (6) alteration or falsification of entries in the DTR or logbook.
Gonzales filed a letter-answer dated September 6, 1995 stating he “did not intend to contest the charges” and pleaded guilty insofar as he could, attributing infractions to “grave family problems” that he said had been resolved. At the pre-hearing conference Atty. Renato C. Bocar represented the complainant, while Atty. Wenceslao L. Narido, Jr. (Public Attorney’s Office) represented Gonzales. Gonzales admitted that the offered exhibits were faithful reproductions and that the facts in Cajandab’s affidavit were correct; he also testified explaining his family circumstances and offered two documents to corroborate his admissions.
After receiving evidence, Justice Balajadia found that for the twelve-month period May 1994–April 1995 (250 working days) Gonzales was late 161 times, worked undertime on at least 37 days, and was absent for 52 full days and 6 half-days (total 55 days); he also failed to timely submit DTRs and did not regularly clean assigned areas. The Investigator concluded, however, that the proofs did not establish habitual absence (no evidence of failure to file leave applications except May 1994) nor did they adequately establish alteration or falsification of records. The Investigator recommended acquittal on those two counts but found Go...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the evidence establish that Santos C. Gonzales, Jr. committed the administrative offenses of habitual absenteeism and falsification of DTR/logbook entries?
- Did the evidence establish that Gonzales was guilty of habitual tardiness, undertime, late submission of DTRs, and irregular work/neglect of duty?
- What penalty should be imposed, considering the applicable rules on multiple charges and the presence of ag...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)