A.M. No. P-13-3171 - IN RE: Sales

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-13-3171)

Factual Background

The OCA Leave Division report dated October 19, 2011 documented that Sales had been consistently late for work in the months of January to September 2011. The report quantified his tardiness by month, showing recurrent late arrivals in almost every month within the nine-month period. Specifically, it stated that in January 2011 he was tardy twenty times during the twenty-one working days, and he came on time only once, on January 3, 2011 at 8:00 a.m..

The report further showed that in February 2011, Sales came on time only on February 15, 23, and 25, while he was on sick leave on February 8, 9, and 28. In March 2011, he incurred ten incidents of tardiness and applied for sick leave on March 7, with a forced leave from March 14 to 18. In April 2011, he came on time only on April 7, and was late thirteen times. The report also noted sick leave on April 5 and April 26 to April 29. For May 2011, Sales was tardy on all the days he went to the office and was on sick leave for five days. In June 2011, he reported on time only on June 6, and was on sick leave from June 7 to 10 and on June 17 and 27. In July 2011, he was tardy on the days he reported and went on sick leave on multiple dates. In August 2011, he was tardy on the days he went to the office and was also on sick leave and vacation leave. Finally, in September 2011, although there were twenty-one working days, he reported only twelve times, and he was tardy on all of those days; he was on sick leave for six days and on vacation leave for three days.

On the days of leave, Sales indicated in his Sales Daily Time Records (DTRs) that he had filed sick leave, vacation leave, or forced leave. The record, however, did not show whether his leave applications had been approved by his superiors.

OCA Requirement, Sales’s Admission, and OCA Recommendations

Following the report, the OCA issued a 1st Indorsement dated November 21, 2011, requiring Sales to comment on the charge of habitual tardiness. Sales filed his comment dated January 17, 2012, where he admitted his frequent tardiness in reporting to the office. He explained that although he knew habitual tardiness could lead to dismissal, he continued to report late in the hope that the Court would be lenient and allow him to continue serving in the judiciary. He also stated that the prospect of losing his job affected his health, expressed remorse, and requested liberal treatment.

In an Agenda Report dated May 21, 2013, the OCA recommended that the October 19, 2011 report be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter against Sales for habitual tardiness, and that Sales be found guilty and dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

The Governing Standards on Timekeeping and Tardiness

The Court referenced the administrative rule that all government officials and employees must render not less than eight hours of work per day for five days a week, or a total of forty hours per week, exclusive of lunch time. It recognized the generally prescribed office hours from eight o’clock in the morning to five o’clock in the afternoon, with a lunch break between twelve noon and one o’clock in the afternoon.

To determine habitual tardiness, the Court relied on CSC Memorandum Circular No. 04, s. 1991, which provided that an officer or employee is habitually tardy if he is late for work, regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least two (2) months in a semester, or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year.

Court’s Findings on Habitual Tardiness and Habitual Absenteeism

The Court found that Sales’s DTRs demonstrated recurring tardiness from January to September 2011, and that he incurred more than ten instances of tardiness in each month during that period, with the exception of March where he still incurred ten incidents of lateness. The Court noted that this was the third time Sales had been charged with habitual tardiness.

The Court also considered prior penalties reflected in the OCA report, stating that Sales had previously been disciplined for habitual tardiness: he had been reprimanded in A.M. No. P-08-2499, suspended for thirty days without pay in A.M. No. P-05-2049, and suspended for three months without pay in A.M. No. P-11-3022. The Court observed that even after warnings that a repetition of the same offense would be met with more severe consequences, Sales failed to correct his conduct.

In addition to tardiness, the Court held that Sales was also habitually absent. It explained that under the relevant standards, an employee is habitually absent if unauthorized absences exceed the allowable two and one-half (2.5) days monthly leave credit for at least three (3) months in a semester, or at least three (3) consecutive months during the year. The Court found that Sales’s absences for the months of January to September 2011 exceeded the allowable credit, and that for every month during that period he was absent for more than 2.5 days.

The Court addressed Sales’s DTR entries indicating sick leave, vacation leave, or forced leave, and ruled that the record still did not show approval of these leave applications by the proper authorities. The Court cited the rule that taking and approval of leave follow a formal process, and that a leave application must be duly approved by the authorized officer. It therefore treated the absences as unauthorized.

Applicable Administrative Offense Classification and Penalty Framework

The Court referenced Section 52, Rule IV of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999, which classifies frequent unauthorized absences and tardiness in reporting for duty as grave offenses. It stated that for the first offense, the penalty is suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year, and for the second offense, dismissal from the service. It also noted that in determining the penalty, the disciplining authority must consider mitigating, aggravating, and alternative circumstances.

Assessment of Mitigating Circumstances: Length of Service as “Alternative Circumstance”

The Court rejected the absence of any mitigating circumstance in Sales’s case. It acknowledged that Sales had served in the judiciary for almost seventeen (17) years, but held that length of service operates as a double-edged sword. The Court ruled that length of service does not automatically mitigate administrative liability, and that while it sometimes may reduce the penalty, it may also support a more serious sanction depending on the context.

The Court characterized length of service as an alternative circumstance, consistent with Section 53 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which allows attendant circumstances to be treated as mitigating, aggravating, or alternative by the disciplining body. Given Sales’s repeated warnings and continued commission of similar offenses, the Court held that his length of service could not mitigate the gravity of his conduct or the penalty warranted by his record.

Accountability in the Judiciary and the Role-Model Requirement

The Court stressed that officials and employees of the judiciary must serve as role models in faithful observance of the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust. It referenced the Court’s Memorandum C

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-13-3171)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The Court resolved an administrative matter concerning Cesar E. Sales, Cash Clerk III, Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila.
The proceeding originated from a report submitted by the Leave Division, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated October 19, 2011.
The OCA required Sales to comment on the charge through a 1st Indorsement dated November 21, 2011.
Sales submitted a comment dated January 17, 2012 admitting his frequent tardiness and requesting leniency.
In an Agenda Report dated May 21, 2013, the OCA recommended that the matter be treated as a regular administrative case, that Sales be found guilty of habitual tardiness, and that he be dismissed with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment.
The Court adjudicated the case en banc and ultimately dismissed Sales from the service while finding him guilty of both habitual tardiness and habitual absenteeism.

Key Factual Allegations

The OCA’s October 19, 2011 report showed that Sales had consistently been tardy in reporting to office for the months of January to September 2011, with frequent late arrivals recorded in his Sales Daily Time Records (DTRs).
In January 2011, Sales was tardy 20 times out of 21 working days, and he arrived on time only once on January 3, 2011 at 8:00 a.m.
In February 2011, Sales was on time only on February 15, February 23, and February 25, while he was on sick leave on February 8, February 9, and February 28.
In March 2011, Sales incurred 10 incidents of tardiness and applied for sick leave on March 7, while he was on forced leave from March 14 to March 18.
In April 2011, Sales came on time only on April 7 and was late 13 times, and he was also on sick leave on April 5 and April 26 to April 29.
In May 2011, Sales was tardy on all the days he went to the office, and he was on sick leave for five days.
In June 2011, Sales reported on time only on June 6, while he was on sick leave from June 7 to June 10 and on June 17 and June 27.
In July 2011, Sales was tardy on the days he reported to the office and went on sick leave on six occasions on different dates.
In August 2011, Sales was tardy on the days he reported to the office, and he was also on sick leave for seven days and on vacation leave for three days.
In September 2011, although there were 21 working days, Sales reported to the office only 12 times, and he was tardy on all these days.
In September 2011, Sales was on sick leave for six days and on vacation leave for three days.
Sales indicated in his DTRs that his absences were covered by sick leave, vacation leave, or forced leave, but the record did not show whether his leave applications were approved by his superiors.
In his January 17, 2012 comment, Sales admitted his frequent tardiness and acknowledged that habitual tardiness could lead to dismissal.
Sales stated that he continued to report late in the hope the Court would be lenient and gave emphasis to the effect of job loss on his health, while also expressing remorse and seeking liberal treatment.

Administrative Rules on Attendance

The Court recognized the governing requirement that all government officials and employees must render not less than eight hours of work per day for five days a week, or a total of 40 hours of work per week, exclusive of lunch time.
The Court also noted the general work schedule from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with lunch break between 12 noon and 1:00 p.m.
Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 04, s. 1991, an officer or employee is considered habitually tardy if he is late for work, regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least two (2) months in a semester, or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year.
The OCA report characterized Sales’s conduct in January to September 2011 as meeting the habitually tardy standard because he incurred tardiness continuously for more than 10 times each month for the relevant months, including March when he still incurred tardiness 10 times.
The Court further addressed habitual absenteeism, explaining that an employee is considered habitually absent if he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three (3) months in a semester, or at least (3) consecutive months during the year.
The Court found that Sales’s absences for January to September 2011 exceeded the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit for every month in the period.
The Court held that the failure to show approval of leave applications was material because taking and approval of leave follow a formal process.
The Court cited the rule that an application for leave must be duly approved by the authorized officer, and the decision referenced Administrative Circular No. 14-2002 dated March 18, 2002 and related jurisprudence.

Applicable Penalty Provisions

The Court treated frequent unauthorized absences and tardiness in reporting for duty as grave offenses under Section 52, Rule IV of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999.
The Court stated that the first offense carries the penalty of suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year, while the second offense results in dismissal from the service.
The Court explained that the determination of penalties considers mitigating, aggravating, and alternative circumstances attendant to the administrative infraction.

Prior Offenses and Recidivism

The Court observed that Sales had been charged of habitual tardiness before and that the case was the third time he faced such a charge.
The OCA report identified prior administrative actions against Sales: a reprimand in A.M. No. P-08-249