Title
Re: Unauthorized Absences of Karen R. Cuenca
Case
A.M. No. 2005-03-SC
Decision Date
Mar 15, 2005
A Supreme Court clerk is found guilty of unauthorized absences and is suspended for six months and one day, highlighting the importance of maintaining public accountability and the severity of absenteeism in the judiciary.
Font Size

Case Digest (A.M. No. 2005-03-SC)

Facts:

  • Karen R. Cuenca, a Clerk II in the Property Division-Office of Administrative Services of the Supreme Court, was reported for unauthorized absences in January 2005.
  • The Leave Division records indicated that Cuenca had been absent without leave (AWOL) since December 29, 2004.
  • Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, directed Cuenca to report for work within five days and explain her absences.
  • Cuenca responded on January 31, 2005, citing dental and medical conditions as reasons for her absences, supported by medical certificates from Dra. Cynthia Obligar and Dra. Rosan de los Santos.
  • Despite these explanations, Atty. Candelaria noted that the medical certificates only covered specific days and did not justify the entire period of absence.
  • Cuenca had a history of frequent absences and tardiness, with 82.63 absences, 66 instances of tardiness, and 9.8 undertime recorded in the previous year.
  • The case was brought before the Supreme Court for resolution.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court found that Cuenca's medical certificates did not fully support her reasons for the entire period of her absences.
  • Cuenca was found guilty of absenteeism and was suspended for six months and one day. She was also adm...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court emphasized that as a government employee, Cuenca is subject to Civil Service laws, which classify frequent unauthorized absences and tardiness as grave offenses.
  • Under Civil Service Resolution No. 991936 and Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, such offenses are punishable by suspension for the first offense and dismissal for the second.
  • The Court noted that approval of sick leave is mandatory only if proof of sickness or disability ...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.