A.M. No. 2005-16-SC - Re: Habitual Absenteeism of Mr. Ferdo P. Pascual

Fernando P. Pascual has been in the service of the Judiciary since May 2, 1979.
He began his career as a casual employee, later designated as a Stitcher in 1984 and as a Utility Worker in 1989.
He has served for 26 years and this is the only instance where he has been administratively charged.
His daily salary was P20.00, which contextualizes his long-term, modest employment status.

Total unauthorized absences clearly exceeded the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit over three consecutive months as prescribed under Administrative Circular No. 14-2002.

Pascual claimed that poor health was the primary cause of his absences.
He reported suffering from abnormal blood pressure, frequent headaches, and even prolonged periods of being bedridden due to the flu.
He also mentioned instances where he had to care for his sick children and scenarios where he lacked sufficient funds for transportation.

Dr. Prudencio P. Banzon, the SC Chief Staff Officer for Medical and Dental Services, confirmed that Pascual had been consulting the clinic repeatedly since 1979 for various health complaints.
Historical medical issues included skin rashes, cough and colds, musculoskeletal aches, and headaches.
His condition worsened from 1995 with the onset of more frequent headaches and occasional dizziness, eventually leading to a diagnosis of hypertension starting in 1997, which persists.

The Office of Administrative Offices (OAS), through Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, recognized Pascual’s acknowledgment of his health issues, including his confirmed hypertension.
However, the OAS found Pascual’s claim of being bedridden for a week due to the flu to be unsupported and self-serving.
Additional reasons cited—such as caring for his sick children and lack of funds—were deemed mitigating factors that would lessen but not excuse the infraction.
Initially, the OAS recommended a penalty of P10,000.00.

Whether the pattern of absences (7 days in March, 11 days in April, and 3 days in May 2005) constitutes habitual absenteeism under Administrative Circular No. 14-2002.
The legal threshold involving unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit for three consecutive months was at issue.

Whether Pascual’s claims of poor health, family responsibilities, and lack of financial means can serve as sufficient exculpatory factors under the law.
Whether these mitigating circumstances can justify a lighter penalty compared to the penalties prescribed for habitual absenteeism.

Determining if the penalty should follow the standard imposition under Administrative Circular No. 14-2002 and the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which prescribe suspension or dismissal for repeated offenses.
Evaluating whether humanitarian considerations, such as long service, remorse, and family circumstances, warrant a less severe sanction than originally recommended.