Case Digest (A.M. No. P-16-3471)
Facts:
Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. John Revel B. Pedrina, Clerk III, Branch 200, Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City, A.M. No. P-16-3471 (Formerly A.M. No. 15-06-197-RTC), July 26, 2016, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.In a Report dated May 26, 2015, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) transmitted information from the Employees Leave Division that John Revel B. Pedrina, Clerk III of Branch 200, RTC, Las Piñas City, incurred multiple instances of tardiness in 2014: January (10), February (11), March (11), May (10), July (14), September (11), November (14), and December (10). Photocopies of the timecards for those months accompanied the report.
On May 29, 2015, the matter was referred within the OCA to its Legal Office for appropriate action. The Court Administrator then directed respondent to comment on June 26, 2015. In his August 14, 2015 comment, Pedrina admitted the tardiness and explained it was due to health problems (severe headaches, vomiting, blurred eyesight, weakness), anemia, and difficulty commuting from Manila, but he did not proffer medical evidence to substantiate these claims.
The records showed respondent previously had been disciplined for habitual tardiness: a reprimand and one-month suspension in a Resolution dated August 8, 2005 (A.M. 05-7-421-RTC), and a thirty-day suspension in a Resolution dated June 5, 2013 (A.M. No. 12-9-204-RTC [P-13-3120]). The OCA recommended re-docketing the matter as a regular administrative case and that respondent be found guilty of habitual tardiness for the third time and dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment.
The Court considered the OCA Administra...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was respondent John Revel B. Pedrina guilty of habitual tardiness under applicable civil service standards?
- If guilty, was dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to re-employment the proper penalty fo...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)