EN BANC
[ A.M. NO. 2005-03-SC, March 15, 2005 ]RE: UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES OF KAREN R. CUENCA +
RE: UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES OF KAREN R. CUENCA, CLERK II, PROPERTY DIVISION-OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
R E S O L U T I O N
RE: UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES OF KAREN R. CUENCA +
RE: UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES OF KAREN R. CUENCA, CLERK II, PROPERTY DIVISION-OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
R E S O L U T I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
The instant administrative matter arose due to the unauthorized absences of Karen R. Cuenca, Clerk II, Property Division-Office of Administrative Services, which was reported to the Complaints and Investigation Division sometime in January 2005. The records
of the Leave Division showed that as of January 2005, the respondent has been absent from work without leave (AWOL) since December 29, 2004.
Thus, in a Memorandum dated January 21, 2005, Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, directed the respondent to report for work within five (5) days from receipt thereof. She was, likewise, required to explain why no administrative disciplinary action should be taken against her for violating existing leave laws and reasonable office rules and regulations.
In compliance to the said directive, the respondent submitted a Memorandum dated January 31, 2005, where she gave the following explanat
According to Atty. Candelaria, the respondent's claim that she underwent a root canal operation on January 5, 2005 and consulted a doctor for lumbar pain on January 11, 2005 was properly supported by medical certifications. However, she noted that the dental and medical certifications were issued on January 5 and 11, 2005, respectively, while the respondent was absent from work on December 9, 2004 to January 24, 2005. As such, the certifications would only excuse her during the days of actual consultation with the doctors, and not on any other days.
Atty. Candelaria also noted that while the doctor advised "bed rest" for Ms. Cuenca for her lumbar pain, there was no period specified in the medical certificate; as such, it could be presumed then that the bed rest recommended by the doctor pertained to that day only. Furthermore, the respondent did not present a medical certificate to prove that she really did consult a urologist as advised by her doctor, "at least to show perhaps that there was indeed persistent pain that would require an extended period of her absence from work."
Atty. Candelaria then recommended that the respondent be meted the penalty of suspension for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day for her unauthorized absences.
The Court agrees with the foregoing findings and recommendation.
The respondent, as a Supreme Court employee, is covered by the Civil Service law. Under Civil Service Resolution No. 991936,[1] Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, "frequent, unauthorized absences, or tardiness in reporting for duty, loafing or frequent, unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours" is classified as a grave offense, punishable by suspension for the first offense (6 months, 1 day to one 1 year) or dismissal for the second offense.[2] Furthermore, under Administrative Circular No. 2-99,[3] which took effect on February 1, 1999
It must be stressed that frequent unauthorized absences without authorization is inimical to public service[6] and for this, the respondent must be meted the proper penalty. Indeed, even with the fullest measure of sympathy and patience, the Court cannot act otherwise since the exigencies of government service cannot and should never be subordinated to purely human equations.[7] The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, and this Court cannot countenance any act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[8]
WHEREFORE, respondent Karen R. Cuenca is found GUILTY of absenteeism and is SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day. She is likewise ADMONISHED for her loafing during regular office hours. She is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Carpio-Morales, J., on leave.
[1] Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[2] Rule IV, Section 52(A)(17).
[3] Strict Observance of Working Hours and Disciplinary Action for Absenteeism and Tardiness.
[4] Amendments to the Omnibus Leave Rules.
[5] See Memorandum Circular No. 14, Series of 1999, Additional Provisions and Amendments to CSC Memorandum Circular No. 41, 1998.
[6] Eamiguel v. Ho, 287 SCRA 79 (1998).
[7] See Office of the Court Administrator v. Grecia, 246 SCRA 139 (1995).
[8] Re: Ms. Teresita S. Sabido, 242 SCRA 432 (1995).
Thus, in a Memorandum dated January 21, 2005, Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer, directed the respondent to report for work within five (5) days from receipt thereof. She was, likewise, required to explain why no administrative disciplinary action should be taken against her for violating existing leave laws and reasonable office rules and regulations.
In compliance to the said directive, the respondent submitted a Memorandum dated January 31, 2005, where she gave the following explanat
My absences were the results of dental and medical conditions that were properly documented by Dra. Cynthia Obligar of Dental City III, SM-Bacoor and Dra. Rosan de los Santos of St. Therese of Little Flowers Clinic, Rm. 216, Bacoor Business Center, Bacoor, Cavite.Thereafter, in a Memorandum dated February 14, 2005, Atty. Candelaria disclosed that the memorandum directing the respondent to comment on her unauthorized absences was ordered served only on January 25, 2005 because the latter was reportedly seen in the Court's premises that morning. Moreover, the chronolog print-out of her daily time record (DTR) showed that she punched in 7:39 a.m. and left at 5:31 p.m. Atty. Candelaria further explained that the respondent had likewise been asked to report to the Office of Administrative Services that day and did not show up until it was already midday. Hence, the Memorandum dated January 21, 2005 was served in the afternoon at the respondent's residence.
More specifically, on January 5, 2005, Dra. Obligar issued a medical certificate proving that she did a root canal operation because of the serious condition of my tooth requiring immediate performance of the said procedure. This dental condition [began] on or about December 28, 2004, but I wasn't able to go to a dentist immediately because of the Holiday [Season].
The infection and subsequent severe swelling of my tooth resulted to temporary facial disfigurement making my presence in the office likely to lead to other serious conditions. In addition, it was determined that a root canal operation or extraction was not recommended earlier because of the extreme pain felt prior to January 5. Accordingly, Dra. Obligar performed the root canal operation and completed the record as to the medication and rest required due to this dental condition on January 5, 2005.
Likewise, Dra. Rosan de los Santos issued another medical certificate on January 11, 2005 after I complained of excruciating back pains that started on or about January 9, 2005. While [it is] undetermined that a dental condition was related to the back pains, it is [suspected] that these back pains [are] associated to my past history of Scoliosis or Urolithiasis (Renal Stones). Due to the intense pain, Dra. De los Santos recommended further medical examination and ordered heavy dosages of medication to be taken while I was on stated bed rest. The attached medical certificate or additional inquiry from the doctor's office should provide more detailed explanation of my medical condition on the period in question.
I would also like to note that I have notified my assigned immediate supervisor, Engr. Antonio Bayot, Jr. of my dental and medical conditions with emphasis on the matters of excessive tooth pain and extreme back pains through text messages.
According to Atty. Candelaria, the respondent's claim that she underwent a root canal operation on January 5, 2005 and consulted a doctor for lumbar pain on January 11, 2005 was properly supported by medical certifications. However, she noted that the dental and medical certifications were issued on January 5 and 11, 2005, respectively, while the respondent was absent from work on December 9, 2004 to January 24, 2005. As such, the certifications would only excuse her during the days of actual consultation with the doctors, and not on any other days.
Atty. Candelaria also noted that while the doctor advised "bed rest" for Ms. Cuenca for her lumbar pain, there was no period specified in the medical certificate; as such, it could be presumed then that the bed rest recommended by the doctor pertained to that day only. Furthermore, the respondent did not present a medical certificate to prove that she really did consult a urologist as advised by her doctor, "at least to show perhaps that there was indeed persistent pain that would require an extended period of her absence from work."
Atty. Candelaria then recommended that the respondent be meted the penalty of suspension for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day for her unauthorized absences.
The Court agrees with the foregoing findings and recommendation.
The respondent, as a Supreme Court employee, is covered by the Civil Service law. Under Civil Service Resolution No. 991936,[1] Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999, "frequent, unauthorized absences, or tardiness in reporting for duty, loafing or frequent, unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours" is classified as a grave offense, punishable by suspension for the first offense (6 months, 1 day to one 1 year) or dismissal for the second offense.[2] Furthermore, under Administrative Circular No. 2-99,[3] which took effect on February 1, 1999
… Absenteeism and tardiness, even if such do not qualify as "habitual" or "frequent" under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1991, shall be dealt with severely, and any falsification of daily time records to cover-up for such absenteeism and/or tardiness shall constitute gross dishonesty or serious misconduct.The rules on applications for sick leave are further laid down in Memorandum Circular No. 41,[4] Series of 1998, to wit:
Sec. 53. Applications for sick leave. All applications for sick leave of absence for one full day or more shall be on the prescribed form and shall be filed immediately upon the employee's return from such leave. Notice of absence, however, should be sent to the immediate supervisor and/or to the agency head. Application for sick leave in excess of five (5) successive days shall be accompanied by a proper medical certificate.Approval of sick leave whether with pay or without pay is mandatory as long as proof of sickness or disability is attached to the application.[5] In this case, however, the respondent's medical certificate failed to fully support her reason. As Atty. Candelaria adequately put it, the Court's sympathy can only be extended to those with valid excuses. As noted by Atty. Candelaria in her report, the respondent has been consistently absenting herself and incurring tardiness; last year alone, she incurred 82.63 absences, 66 tardiness, 9.8 undertime, and was duly reminded thereon. And even after she was required to explain her unauthorized absences, the respondent again did not report for work.
Sick leave may be applied for in advance in cases where the official or employee will undergo medical examination or operation or be advised to rest in view of ill health duly supported by a medical certificate.
In ordinary application for sick leave already taken not exceeding five days, the head of department or agency concerned may duly determine whether or not the granting of sick leave is proper under the circumstances. In case of doubt, a medical certificate may be required.
It must be stressed that frequent unauthorized absences without authorization is inimical to public service[6] and for this, the respondent must be meted the proper penalty. Indeed, even with the fullest measure of sympathy and patience, the Court cannot act otherwise since the exigencies of government service cannot and should never be subordinated to purely human equations.[7] The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, and this Court cannot countenance any act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[8]
WHEREFORE, respondent Karen R. Cuenca is found GUILTY of absenteeism and is SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day. She is likewise ADMONISHED for her loafing during regular office hours. She is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Carpio-Morales, J., on leave.
[1] Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[2] Rule IV, Section 52(A)(17).
[3] Strict Observance of Working Hours and Disciplinary Action for Absenteeism and Tardiness.
[4] Amendments to the Omnibus Leave Rules.
[5] See Memorandum Circular No. 14, Series of 1999, Additional Provisions and Amendments to CSC Memorandum Circular No. 41, 1998.
[6] Eamiguel v. Ho, 287 SCRA 79 (1998).
[7] See Office of the Court Administrator v. Grecia, 246 SCRA 139 (1995).
[8] Re: Ms. Teresita S. Sabido, 242 SCRA 432 (1995).