Title
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Bravo
Case
A.M. No. P-17-3710, P-18-3822
Decision Date
Mar 13, 2018
Court interpreter Vladimir Bravo dismissed for habitual absenteeism, forfeiting benefits and barred from re-employment after 133.5 unauthorized absences.

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-17-3710, P-18-3822)

Factual Antecedents

Bravo's absenteeism emerged prominently when Teodora R. Balboa, the Branch Clerk of Court at MeTC, wrote to the OCA on December 11, 2012, requesting acknowledgment of Bravo as Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL) due to his continuous absence since September 19, 2012, without a recorded leave. The OCA subsequently issued a directive on June 19, 2013, requesting Bravo’s commentary on the report, which he failed to submit. Additional communications, including a tracer dated April 23, 2014, yielded no response from Bravo, who instead chose to resign from the judiciary effective August 23, 2013.

Report and Recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator

In its report dated February 9, 2017, the OCA concluded that Bravo’s failure to respond indicated an implicit admission to the charges of habitual absenteeism. He had a substantial history of unauthorized absences: totaling 72.5 days in 2012 and 61 days in 2013. The OCA emphasized that such actions posed a threat to the integrity of the judiciary and recommended dismissing Bravo with accessory penalties preventing his future employment in any government entity due to the severity of his infractions.

Issue

The central issue for determination was whether Bravo’s conduct constituted habitual absenteeism warranting dismissal and barring him from future government service.

The Court's Ruling

The Court upheld the OCA's findings, categorizing Bravo’s actions as habitual absenteeism, which is defined under Civil Service regulations as exceeding permissible leave credits consistently over a specified period. Bravo’s unauthorized absences significantly surpassed the allowable threshold. The Court highlighted that his silence and failure to provide an explanation served as aggravating factors, suggesting deliberate avoidance of accountability. Thus, the Court held that allowing his return to public service would compromise the integrity of the judiciary, reinforcing the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.