Facts:

This case involves an administrative complaint against Pearl Marie N. Icamina, a Legal Researcher at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 8 in Kalibo, Aklan. The complaint was initiated due to allegations of habitual tardiness and frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours. The timeline of events began in July 2001, when Judge Eustaquio G. Terencio issued several memoranda directing Icamina to complete statements of facts in pending cases. On June 24, 2003, Executive Judge Marietta J. Homena-Valencia instructed all branch clerks to monitor personnel to address complaints about employees leaving after logging in. Subsequently, on July 14, 2003, Atty. Rhea Vidal-Ibarreta, Clerk of Court V, directed Icamina to seek permission before leaving the office for personal errands. Despite these directives, Icamina continued to leave the office without authorization. A letter-complaint was filed on July 16, 2004, detailing her habitual tardiness and unauthorize...

Facts:

Background and Initial Complaints

• Pearl Marie N. Icamina, a Legal Researcher at Branch 8, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan, was accused of loafing or frequent unauthorized absences during regular office hours.
• From July 2001 to October 2002, Judge Eustaquio G. Terencio issued several memoranda directing Icamina to complete statements of facts for pending cases.
• On June 24, 2003, Executive Judge Marietta J. Homena-Valencia issued a memorandum to address complaints about employees leaving after logging in and returning only to log out.
• On July 14, 2003, Atty. Rhea Vidal-Ibarreta, Clerk of Court V, directed Icamina to seek permission before leaving the office during office hours for personal errands.
• On July 15, 2003, Judge Terencio instructed security guards to monitor the arrival and departure of personnel.

Formal Complaints and Evidence

• On July 16, 2004, Atty. Vidal-Ibarreta filed a complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) alleging habitual tardiness and unauthorized absences.
• On April 26, 2005, another complaint was filed, citing regular, unexplained, and unauthorized absences from January 2005 onwards. Certified photocopies of logbook entries maintained by security guards were attached as evidence.
• Icamina submitted her Comment on June 20, 2005, claiming she was singled out and that her absences were for merienda breaks, a privilege granted to all employees.

Investigation and Findings

• On March 13, 2006, the Court referred the matter to the Executive Judge of Kalibo, Aklan, for investigation.
• During the investigation, it was revealed that Icamina frequently left the office during office hours, despite verbal reminders and memoranda.
• Icamina admitted to leaving for personal errands but claimed her research work required her to visit libraries, including the RTC, IBP, and Aklan Catholic College libraries.
• Executive Judge Sheila Martelino-Cortes found that Icamina’s frequent absences were not related to research work, as the RTC and IBP libraries were within the Hall of Justice, and no evidence supported her claim of visiting the Aklan Catholic College library.

Recommendations

• The investigating judge recommended Icamina’s suspension for two months, considering her 20 years of service as a mitigating factor.
• The OCA recommended a six-month and one-day suspension, also considering her length of service as a mitigating circumstance.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Public Office as a Public Trust: Court personnel must observe prescribed office hours and use their time efficiently for public service. Administrative Circular No. 2-99 mandates strict adherence to office hours.
2. Duty of Court Personnel: Court personnel must perform their duties with diligence and professionalism, as their conduct reflects the integrity of the judiciary.
3. Substantial Evidence of Loafing: The logbook entries maintained by security guards provided substantial evidence of Icamina’s frequent unauthorized absences, which lasted from 30 minutes to two hours and occurred almost daily.
4. Failure to Comply with Directives: Icamina failed to comply with memoranda requiring her to seek permission before leaving the office.
5. Unsatisfactory Explanation: Icamina’s claim of conducting research in external libraries was unsupported by evidence and lacked merit, as the RTC and IBP libraries were within the Hall of Justice.
6. Mitigating Circumstance: Icamina’s 20 years of service were considered a mitigating factor, warranting the imposition of the minimum penalty under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.