A.M. No. P-09-2603 - Re: Marcos

A letter dated June 26, 2008, from Court Administrator Zenaida N. ElepaAo referred the Chief of Office, Legal Office, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to a report on the habitual absenteeism of Nelson G. Marcos, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Caloocan City.
The report, prepared by the Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, detailed the number of unauthorized absence days from 2005 to 2008, clearly exceeding the limit allowed by law.
Based on the report, the Court Administrator recommended filing an administrative complaint with the OCA as the complainant.

On August 11, 2008, Marcos submitted his comment in response to the report.
He claimed that on October 31, 2004, he suffered an accident that resulted in a fractured left foot, rendering him incapacitated for about three months (November 2004 to January 2005).
Marcos also alleged involvement in a grievance against his supervisor, Atty. Monalisa Buencamino, suggesting that workplace issues contributed to his absences.
He attributed some absences to events preceding June 2005 and offered various excuses for further absences from 2006 to 2008.
Among the documents attached to his comment was a medical report by Dr. Ramon S. Armedilla, dated August 30, 2005, which disapproved his sick leave application for January to April 2005 due to insufficient corroborative evidence (e.g., a missing X-ray film).

Dr. Armedilla’s report noted that without the X-ray film and with a repeat X-ray showing “no evidence of fracture,” there was no substantiation of the claimed fracture or any healed fracture.
Marcos countered by alleging that the X-ray film had been submitted but possibly misplaced by the SC Leave Division.

The Court Administrator’s December 16, 2008 Report summarized that Marcos incurred unauthorized absences over several years:

Specific records indicated consistently high figures of absences in various months (e.g., 19 days in September 2005; 19.5 and 20.5 days during specific months in 2006; similar patterns in 2007 and 2008).
Marcos’ unauthorized absences were identified as exceeding the allowable limit under the law.

The case was anchored on Civil Service Circular No. 30, Series of 1989, which classifies habitual absenteeism as a grave offense.
Additionally, CSC Memorandum Circular No. 04, s. 1991 on Habitual Absenteeism provided the guidelines that:

An employee is considered habitually absent if unauthorized absences exceed 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three (3) months in a semester or three (3) consecutive months in a year.
Sanctions prescribe a suspension for a first offense and dismissal for a second offense.

The record further cited precedent cases and administrative circulars reinforcing strict adherence to attendance policies in public service.

Based on the findings, the recommendation was to file a regular administrative complaint against Marcos for gross misconduct and habitual absenteeism.
The recommended penalty was dismissal from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except earned leave credits), and a declaration that Marcos would be prejudiced concerning any future re-employment in the government.
The recommendation was made in light of the adverse impact of his absences on the performance of his duties and on the administration of justice.

The Court, acting per curiam, concurred with the administrative findings and recommendations.
The decision highlighted that Marcos’ prolonged unauthorized absences and neglect of duty were detrimental to the performance of his responsibilities as Sheriff.
The ruling reaffirmed that public trust and high standards of conduct are essential for public officers, especially in the judicial system.

Whether Nelson G. Marcos committed habitual absenteeism amounting to a grave offense by exceeding the prescribed number of unauthorized absences.

Whether the explanations he provided, including a claim of injury and grievances over administrative issues, were sufficient to excuse his absences.
Whether the medical evidence and departmental records adequately refuted his defense.

Whether the imposition of sick leave sanctions, including suspension and outright dismissal, was legally justified under the applicable civil service rules.

Whether the specific instances of unauthorized leave, as recorded, met the threshold for gross misconduct.
Whether Marcos was given adequate opportunity to present substantial evidence to mitigate the disciplinary action.

Whether the judicial deference to administrative recommendations in cases of habitual absenteeism is supported by established case law and administrative circulars.

The role of precedent, such as in Juntilla v. Calleja, in determining the severity of sanctions for public officers.
The interpretation of “public office as a public trust” and its implications for duty and responsibility.