A.C. No. 10249 - Rigon, Jr. vs. Subia

John B. Benedito, a Clerk III at the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City, Zambales, was charged with habitual tardiness.
The case was brought before the First Division of the Supreme Court, and the matter concerned administrative discipline for persistent lateness.

In its Resolution dated August 16, 2017, the Court found Benedito guilty of habitual tardiness.
The resolution imposed a consequential penalty: a suspension of ten (10) days, effective from notice, without salary and other benefits, together with a stern warning that any repetition of such conduct would merit a more severe sanction.

Benedito, in an undated letter, communicated that he began serving his 10-day suspension on October 6, 2017 and ended it on October 23, 2017, based on his belief that suspension should be served on working days only.
He argued that since suspension is punitive, it ought to be imposed on workdays so that the act of being penalized (i.e., not reporting for duty) is clearly felt, noting that inclusion of weekends would dilute the punishment.

The matter was referred to the OCA for further evaluation and recommendation regarding how the suspension should be computed.
In its Memorandum dated July 17, 2018, the OCA held that the ten (10) days suspension should be construed as ten (10) calendar days and cited similar practices in past cases.

The OCA’s analysis noted that the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service are silent on whether suspensions are measured in working or calendar days.
The interpretation was supported by references to Article 13 of the Civil Code, Section 31 of Executive Order No. 292, and the case of The Board of Trustees of GSIS v. Velasco and Molina, which underscored the application of “calendar days” in suspension cases.
Benedito’s error was compared to the decision in Wooden v. Civil Service Commission, where an honest mistake did not result in further penalty.

According to Benedito’s Daily Time Record (DTR) for October 2017, he served the 10-day suspension from October 6 to October 15, 2017, confirming that the suspension was indeed served as calendar days.
Benedito’s failure to report to work on October 18, 19, 20, and 23, 2017 was due to his mistaken belief that he was still under suspension, leading to a controversy regarding whether these days should be deducted from his leave credits.
The Court examined whether such deduction was justified given that his suspension period had already been properly served.

The Court ultimately ruled that Benedito’s suspension was meant to be served in calendar days.
Benedito’s misinterpretation, due to the Resolution’s silence on the issue, was considered an honest error, and he was thereby excused from further penalty for the days he mistakenly did not report.
The administrative matter was declared closed and terminated once Benedito was deemed to have rendered full service.

Whether the ten (10) day suspension should be computed as calendar days or working days.
Whether counting the suspension on calendar days negates its punitive effect, as argued by Benedito.

Whether the days Benedito failed to report after the nominal suspension period (October 18, 19, 20, and 23, 2017) should be deducted from his leave credits.
Whether Benedito’s erroneous understanding of the suspension period, being induced by the ambiguous language of the Resolution, warrants relief from further administrative penalty.