Case Digest (A.M. No. P-13-3171)
Facts:
Re: Habitual Tardiness of Cesar E. Sales, Cash Clerk III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Manila, A.M. No. P-13-3171 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-11-116-MeTC), January 28, 2014, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through its Leave Division, submitted a Report dated October 19, 2011 documenting respondent Cesar E. Sales’ daily time records (DTRs) showing persistent tardiness for the months of January to September 2011 (January: 20 times; February: 14; March: 10; April: 13; May: 17; June: 13; July: 15; August: 11; September: 12). The Report also showed numerous absences, some annotated in the DTRs as "sick leave applied," "vacation leave applied" or "forced leave applied," but without proof that such leave applications had been approved by proper authorities.
By 1st Indorsement dated November 21, 2011, the OCA required Sales to comment. In his comment dated January 17, 2012, Sales admitted frequent tardiness, expressed remorse, and asked for leniency, explaining that fear of losing his job affected his health. The OCA, in an Agenda Report dated May 21, 2013, recommended re-docketing the matter as a regular administrative case and finding Sales guilty of habitual tardiness, with the recommended penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment.
The OCA and the Court applied relevant administrative rules: CSC Memorandum Circular No. 04, s. 1991 (definition of habitual tardiness), Administrative Circular No. 14-2002, and CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999, Section 52 (classification and penalties for frequent unauthorized absences and tardiness). The Court also noted Sales’s prior disciplinary record: a reprimand (A.M. No. P-08-2499), a 30-day suspension (A.M. No. P-05-2049), and a 3-month suspension (A.M. No. P-11-3022). Citing Section 53 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the OCA found no mitigating circumstances and treated length of service as an alternative consideration.
(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is respondent Cesar E. Sales guilty of habitual tardiness and habitual absenteeism based on his DTRs for January–September 2011?
- If guilty, is dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment an imposable and...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)