Case Digest (A.M. No. 2005-03-SC)
Facts:
The case caption is Re: Unauthorized Absences of Karen R. Cuenca, Clerk II, Property Division-Office of Administrative Services, A.M. No. 2005-03-SC, March 15, 2005, the Supreme Court En Banc, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court. The matter is an administrative proceeding initiated within the Court concerning the alleged unauthorized absences of Karen R. Cuenca (respondent), a Clerk II in the Property Division of the Office of Administrative Services.The complaint was reported to the Complaints and Investigation Division in January 2005 after the Leave Division showed that the respondent had been absent without leave (AWOL) beginning December 29, 2004. On January 21, 2005, Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, issued a memorandum directing the respondent to report for work within five days and to explain why administrative disciplinary action should not be taken.
In response, the respondent submitted a memorandum (dated January 31, 2005) claiming medical and dental causes: a root canal performed on January 5, 2005 (medical certificate from Dra. Cynthia Obligar) for a condition said to have begun about December 28, 2004, and treatment for severe back pain (medical certificate from Dra. Rosan de los Santos dated January 11, 2005), with alleged connections to scoliosis or urolithiasis. She also asserted that she had notified her immediate supervisor by text messages.
Atty. Candelaria’s subsequent memorandum (dated February 14, 2005) reported that the January 21 memorandum had been served only on January 25 because the respondent was seen in the Court premises that morning; a DTR printout showed the respondent punched in and out that day. Candelaria observed that the medical certificates only covered the dates of consultation (January 5 and 11) and did not account for the extended period of absence from December 29, 2004 to January 24, 2005. She also noted irregularities in the respondent’s attendance record for the prior year (82.63 absences, 66 tardiness, 9.8 undertime) and recommended suspension for six months and one day.
The Court reviewed the administrative rules governing Supreme Court employees (citing Civil Service Resolution No. 991936 / Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999; Administrative Circular No. 2-99; Memorandum Circular No. 41, Series of 1998; Memorandum Circular No. 14, Series of 1999) and prior precedents (e.g., Eamiguel v. Ho, Office of the Court Administrator v. Grecia, Re: Ms. Teresita S. Sabido). The Court adopted the findings and recommendation and resolved the matter by an En Banc...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Karen R. Cuenca commit unauthorized absences and violate applicable leave and attendance rules?
- If so, is suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day an appropriate penalty under the ci...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)