A.M. No. 95-6-02-SB - IN RE: Gonzales, Jr.

Case Summary (A.M. No. 95-6-02-SB)

Procedural Initiation and Investigation Before the Sandiganbayan

On the referral of the Supreme Court, Justice Balajadia conducted proceedings after providing due notice to Santos Gonzales, Jr. He was charged with multiple administrative offenses and was afforded ample opportunity to retain counsel, study the charges, and traverse them. After receiving evidence from both sides, Justice Balajadia submitted a “Report and Recommendations” dated October 12, 1995. Upon deliberation of that report and the evidence on which it was based, the Supreme Court later approved and adopted the report in its entirety.

The Charges and the Filing Mechanism

Justice Balajadia required Atty. Cortez to submit a “specification of charges” against Gonzales, together with supporting writings or sworn statements. Consequently, Atty. Cortez filed a letter-complaint dated August 24, 1995, to which documentary evidence was attached, along with the sworn statement of a lone witness.

The letter-complaint imputed six (6) administrative offenses to Gonzales: (1) tardiness; (2) undertime; (3) absenteeism; (4) late submission of daily time records (DTRs) or violation of reasonable office rules; (5) irregular work or neglect of duty; and (6) alteration or falsification of entries in the DTR or in the logbook used to record employees’ daily time-in and time-out.

Gonzales’ Response and Admissions

In his letter-answer dated September 6, 1995, Gonzales stated that he did not intend to contest the charges and could only “plead guilty as charged.” He attributed the rule infractions to “grave family problems,” which, he claimed, had already been resolved satisfactorily, and he promised that he would thereafter attend to his duties “punctually and efficiently.”

At the pre-hearing conference, the exhibits—presented through Atty. Renato C. Bocar acting as counsel for Atty. Cortez—chiefly consisted of Gonzales’ time records, tabulations of his absences, tardiness, and undertime, the employees’ logbook, memoranda addressed to him by his superiors and his answers thereto, and the affidavit of Mary George T. Cajandab, Clerk III.

With the assistance of counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office, Manila District, through Atty. Wenceslao L. Narido, Jr., Gonzales admitted that the documentary exhibits were faithful reproductions, that the handwriting appearing in certain exhibits was his own or that of Atty. Cortez as indicated, and that the facts stated in Cajandab’s affidavit were correct.

Gonzales then testified in his defense. He narrated the family problems he claimed had caused the administrative infractions and offered two documents to support his assertion that he had admitted tardiness and absences during the relevant periods for the reasons stated therein. No objection was made to the offer.

Evidence and Factual Findings on Tardiness, Undertimes, and Absences

Based on the evidence presented before Justice Balajadia, the record sufficiently confirmed that, during the twelve-month period from May 1994 to April 1995, comprising two hundred fifty (250) working days, Gonzales was late in reporting for work one hundred sixty-one (161) times. As a consequence, he worked undertime for at least thirty-seven (37) days, and he was absent for fifty-two (52) full days and six (6) half-days, or a total of fifty-five (55) days.

The evidence also showed that, contrary to relevant regulations, Gonzales did not submit his DTRs on time and did so only after repeated reminders by the Sandiganbayan’s personnel section. In addition, it was shown that he was not regularly cleaning the areas assigned to him.

Issues on Habitual Absenteeism and Alleged Falsification

The investigator and the report recognized limitations in the evidentiary support for two particular allegations. The proofs were found insufficient to establish that Gonzales was habitually absent, because there was no evidence that, except for the month of May 1994, he failed to file corresponding applications for leave of absence. The proofs were likewise found inadequate to conclude that Gonzales wilfully altered or falsified entries in the logbook or his DTRs.

Accordingly, the report treated Gonzales’ plea of guilty to the charges of habitual absences and falsification as “ill-advised and imprudent” and not a proper basis for conviction for a “wrong not demonstrated.” On this aspect, he was not held liable.

Treatment of the “Grave Family Problems” Defense

While the report did not treat the claimed family difficulties as absolving Gonzales from all liability, it assessed whether such circumstances could negate the remaining charges. Gonzales invoked his family situation by claiming that because his wife was working outside the country, he had been compelled to act as both father and mother to his two children, bringing them to and from school.

The report rejected the defense as an explanation for the extent of his work record. It observed that the alleged family problems did not explain why Gonzales was late almost every day and absent, either full or half day, at least once a month for twelve months during the relevant period. It further noted that May and April were vacation months, which undermined the proposition that Gonzales had to accompany the children to school early in the mornings, and it reasoned that he could not have been attending to school concerns during all of his absences totaling fifty-five days.

The report also found that the same claimed family problems did not explain why Gonzales failed to submit his monthly DTRs on time and why he neglected to regularly clean his assigned areas, emphasizing that his work was manual rather than mental.

Determination of Liability and the Resulting Penalty Framework

Justice Balajadia concluded that Gonzales was guilty of four (4) of the six (6) charges. The Supreme Court later accepted the report’s factual and evaluative conclusions.

Under Section 17, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Commission, the penalty was to be that corresponding to the most serious charge, with the remaining proven offenses considered as aggravating circumstances. The report characterized the most serious offense as tardiness, classified as a grave offense punishable by suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense under Section 23, Rule XIV of the same rules.

With that classification, the report treated the other three (3) infractions as aggravating circumstances and weighed them against Gonzales’ two (2) mitigating circumstances—namely, his voluntary admission of guilt and the alleged family problems conceded as mitigating by the report. The report further applied Section 18(d) of Rule XIV on the graduated application of penalties when aggravating and mitigating circumstances coexist. It held that even appreciating Gonzales’ family problems as mitigating did not lower the penalty to any period less than the maximum, because the aggravating circumstances still outweighed mitigation. The maximum period of the prescribed penalty, as computed by dividing the penalty into three equal periods, fell at ten (10) months and one (1) day to twelve (12) months, and the report imposed the point at ten (10) months and one (1) day.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

In its dispositive action, the Supreme Court absolved Santos C. Gonzales, Jr. of the charges of habitual absences and falsification. It nonetheless declared him guilty of the grave offense of habitual tardiness, as defined under Section 23, 2nd paragraph, sub-paragraph (q), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Commission. The Court imposed the penalty of SUSPENSION for TEN (10) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY. The Supreme Court concurred in the reasoning that Gonzales’ two mitigating circumstances did not suffice to offset the three aggravating circumstances, given the nature and volume of his proven infractions during the twelve-month period.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s resolution rested on two interlocking propositions drawn from the civil service disciplinary framework. First, it accepted that the prosecution evidence established repeated tardiness, undertime, failure to timely submit DTRs (or equivalent violations of

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 95-6-02-SB)

The case arose from a Supreme Court resolution dated July 18, 1995, which referred to the Sandiganbayan for investigation, report, and recommendation a matter involving the habitual tardiness and absenteeism of Utility Worker Santos Gonzales, Jr.
The referral stemmed from a June 5, 1995 Second Indorsement of Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis C. Garchitorena, which transmitted a report of Atty. Luisabel Alfonso Cortez, Executive Clerk of Court IV.
The case was assigned by raffle to Associate Justice Jose S. Balajadia of the Sandiganbayan, who conducted the required proceedings.

Procedural Posture

The Supreme Court directed the Sandiganbayan to conduct the investigation and submit a report after a complaint was endorsed by the Court’s resolution.
Justice Balajadia issued a “Report and Recommendations” dated October 12, 1995 after receiving evidence from both sides.
After deliberation, the Supreme Court approved and adopted the Sandiganbayan report in its entirety.
The Supreme Court’s action resulted in an administrative determination of Gonzales’s liability and the imposition of a civil service penalty.

Parties and Roles

Santos Gonzales, Jr. served as the respondent administrative employee at the Sandiganbayan.
Atty. Luisabel Alfonso Cortez, Executive Clerk of Court IV, functioned as the complainant by submitting the report and initiating the referral process.
Associate Justice Jose S. Balajadia acted as the investigator and recommender within the Sandiganbayan process.
Atty. Renato C. Bocar appeared for Atty. Cortez during the pre-hearing conference to present documentary evidence.
Atty. Wenceslao L. Narido, Jr. (of the Public Attorney’s Office, Manila District) assisted Gonzales during the proceedings.

Key Factual Allegations

The administrative complaint imputed six (6) offenses to Gonzales: tardiness, undertimes, absenteeism, late submission of daily time records (DTRs) or violation of reasonable office rules, irregular work or neglect of duty, and alteration or falsification of entries in the DTRs or the logbook.
The complaint’s factual basis principally relied on Gonzales’s time records, tabulations of absences, tardiness, and undertime, and the logbook recording employees’ daily time-in and time-out.
The complaint also relied on memoranda addressed to Gonzales by his superiors and Gonzales’s responses thereto.
The complaint included an affidavit of Mary George T. Cajandab, Clerk III, supporting the allegations regarding timekeeping and related conduct.

Administrative Charging and Answer

Justice Balajadia required Atty. Cortez to submit a “specification of charges” with writings or sworn statements believed to substantiate the allegations.
Atty. Cortez complied through a letter-complaint dated August 24, 1995, which appended documentary evidence and the sworn statement of a lone witness.
Gonzales filed a letter-answer dated September 6, 1995, where he stated that he did not intend to contest the charges and could only plead guilty as charged.
Gonzales also claimed that the alleged rule infractions resulted from “grave family problems” that had already been satisfactorily resolved, and he promised punctual and efficient attendance thereafter.

Evidence Presented

At the pre-hearing conference, Atty. Bocar offered the documentary evidence, including Gonzales’s time records, tabulations of his absences and lateness, the logbook, memoranda from superiors, Gonzales’s answers, and the affidavit of Mary George T. Cajandab.
Gonzales, with assistance of counsel, admitted that the exhibits were faithful reproductions of the originals and acknowledged that specified handwriting in certain exhibits was either his or Atty. Cortez’s.
Gonzales also admitted that the facts stated in Cajandab’s affidavit were correct.
After the submission of documentary evidence, Gonzales testified in his defense and described his alleged family problems as the cause of his infractions.
Gonzales presented two documents to support his candid admissions of tardiness and absences for the questioned periods, and no objection was made to their admission.

Findings on Tardiness, Absences, and Time Records

The Sandiganbayan’s findings, as accepted by the Supreme Court, confirmed that within the twelve-month period from May 1994 to April 1995 covering two hundred fifty (250) working days, Gonzales was late in reporting for work 161 times.
The evidence showed that as a c