Facts:

Florentino A. Mercado, Jr., the Clerk of Court III at the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Manila, Branch 05, filed an administrative complaint against Noel T. Manalo, a Sheriff III at the same court, on December 9, 1999. The complaint alleged habitual absenteeism and inefficiency on the part of the respondent sheriff. Mercado claimed that Manalo was absent without leave for ten days in September, fourteen days in October, seven days in November, and sixteen days in December of 1999. This pattern of absenteeism led to complaints from several lawyers and litigants regarding the lack of attention to the execution of judgments and service of summons in their cases. The presiding judge of MeTC, Manila, Branch 05, also received both oral and written complaints about Manalo's absence. On November 11, 1999, the presiding judge issued a memorandum requiring Manalo to submit the sheriff's return for nine criminal cases and four civil cases. On March 21, 2000, the Court Admin...

Facts:

1. Complainant and Respondent: Florentino A. Mercado, Jr., Clerk of Court III, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Manila, Branch 05, filed an administrative complaint against Noel T. Manalo, Sheriff III, MeTC, Manila, Branch 05, for habitual absenteeism and inefficiency.
2. Allegations of Absenteeism:
   • Respondent was absent without leave for:
     • 10 days in September 1999
     • 14 days in October 1999
     • 7 days in November 1999
     • 16 days in December 1999
   • Lawyers and litigants complained about the respondent's failure to attend to executions and service of summons.
   • The presiding judge of MeTC, Manila, Branch 05, also received oral and written complaints against the respondent.
3. Memorandum Issued: On November 11, 1999, the presiding judge issued a memorandum requiring the respondent to submit sheriff's returns for 9 criminal cases and 4 civil cases.
4. Failure to Comment: On March 21, 2000, the Court Administrator required the respondent to comment on the complaint within 10 days. Despite receiving notice on April 17, 2000, the respondent failed to submit his comment and continued to be absent without leave.
5. Dropped from Service: On July 24, 2000, the Supreme Court resolved to drop the respondent from the service effective September 1, 1999, pending the outcome of the administrative case.
6. Recommendation for Dismissal: On July 9, 2001, the Acting Court Administrator recommended the respondent's dismissal for grave misconduct, absence without leave, and conduct prejudicial to public service.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Habitual Absenteeism: Under Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, Series of 1998, habitual absenteeism is defined as unauthorized absences exceeding 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester or three consecutive months in a year. The respondent's absences far exceeded this limit.
2. Neglect of Duty: The respondent's habitual absenteeism resulted in neglect of his duties as Sheriff III, causing prejudice to litigants, lawyers, and the court.
3. Public Office as a Public Trust: Public officers are accountable to the people, and their conduct must always be above suspicion. The respondent's actions diminished public trust in the judiciary.
4. Failure to Explain: The respondent did not offer any explanation for his absences or respond to the Court's directives, showing indifference and willful disobedience.
5. Penalty of Dismissal: The respondent's actions constituted gross misconduct and conduct prejudicial to public service, warranting the penalty of dismissal.