EN BANC
[ A.M. No. 18-06-07-CA, June 25, 2019 ]RE: UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES OF CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE J. SANGALANG +
RE: UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES OF CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE J. SANGALANG, CLERK III, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA.
RESOLUTION
RE: UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES OF CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE J. SANGALANG +
RE: UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES OF CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE J. SANGALANG, CLERK III, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA.
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:
For resolution is the Report[1] dated April 30, 2018 submitted by Juanita P. Tibayan-Castro, Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Personnel Division of the Court of Appeals with reference to respondent Christopher Marlowe J. Sangalang's (Sangalang) frequent unauthorized absences (habitual absenteeism) from January 2017 to March 2018.
Based on the report, from January 2017 to March 2018, Sangalang's total absences were 108.9 or an average of 7.26 days per month, exceeding the allowable absences of 2.5 days per month. From July 2017 to March 2018, he failed to file the required application for leave of absence for all incurred absences. Sangalang was warned both verbally and in writing of his absences, and was also reminded to file his application for leave of absence but such warnings were unheeded. With regard to his tardiness, he has been tardy 91 times in the 187 days he reported to office, almost half of the time he was present he was late.[2]
Further, in the Follow-up Report[3] dated May 9, 2018, Chief Judicial Staff Officer Tibayan-Castro also averred that on April 1, 2016, an Inter-Office Memorandum was issued to Sangalang which required him to explain in writing why he punched his bundy card but did not report to work, and failed to inform the office of his whereabouts. In his Answer[4] dated April 4, 2016, Sangalang admitted his oversight and begged the indulgence of the Office and promised that the same will not happen anymore.
Because of Sangalang's failure to improve his attendance in reporting for work despite warnings, Chief Judicial Staff Officer Tibayan-Castro recommended that Sangalang be suspended for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day for frequent unauthorized absences in violation of Section 50(B), Rule 10 of the Administrative Offenses and Penalties of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.[5]
On May 15, 2018, in the Report and Recommendation[6] docketed as INV. REF. No. 02-2018-RFB, Atty. Teresita R. Marigomen, Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, recommended that Sangalang be suspended for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day for unauthorized absences (habitual absenteeism).[7]
On June 8, 2018, Justice Romeo F. Barza, Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the Report and Recommendation dated May 15, 2018 and the records on Investigation Reference No. 02-2018-RFB.[8]
On July 27, 2018, the OCA referred to Sangalang the Letter dated April 30, 2018 of Ms. Juanita P. Tibayan-Castro, charging him of unauthorized absences, and required him to comment on the allegation against him.[9]
In his Answer[10] dated August 8, 2018, Sangalang manifested that he would not contest the charge of unauthorized absences against him. He manifested acceptance of the recommended suspension from office albeit requested that the suspension be imposed much later in order for him to receive the benefits due him for the year 2018. He also promised to be a better person after he reports back to work from suspension.
On January 17, 2019, the OCA recommended that the instant matter be redocketed as a regular administrative matter against Sangalang. It also recommended that Sangalang be found guilty of habitual absenteeism and be suspended from office for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day, with a warning that a repetition of the same offense shall warrant his dismissal from the service.
RULING
Administrative Circular No. 14-2002[11] provides that an employee in the Civil Service shall be considered habitually absent if he or she incurs "unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit under the law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive months during the year."
In the instant case, the OCA found that Sangalang had incurred absences totaling to 75.9 days spread from January to December 2017, and a total of 33 days of absences for the period January to March 2018.[12] From the total of 108.9 absences from January 2017 to March 2018, Sangalang failed to file the required application for leave of absence for all his absences incurred within the period of nine (9) months, or from July 2017 to March 2018. Thus, Sangalang's absences from July 2017 to March 2018, which totaled to 75 days are all unauthorized due to lack of leave approval. Significantly, when the OCA required Sangalang to answer the charges against him, he offered no explanation and unabashedly requested that his suspension be imposed on a later date to enable him to receive the benefits due him for 2018. The OCA observed that Sangalang was anything but remorseful in his comment on his unauthorized absences.
Time and again, this Court has made the pronouncement that any act which falls short of the exacting standards for public office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the Judiciary, shall not be countenanced. Public office is a public trust. Public officers must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. A court employee's repeated absences without leave constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service and warrants the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits.[13]
Conduct is prejudicial to the public service if it violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes - or tends to diminish - the people's faith in the Judiciary. By the habituality and frequency of his unauthorized absences, Sangalang did not live up to the degree of accountability, efficiency, and integrity that the Judiciary has required of its officials and employees. His position as Clerk III was essential and indispensable to the Judiciary's primary mandate of the proper administration of justice. This mandate dictated that he as a court employee should devote his office hours strictly to the public service, if only to repay and serve the people whose taxes were used to maintain the Judiciary. His habitual absenteeism severely compromised the integrity and image that the Judiciary sought to preserve, and, thus, violated this mandate.[14]
Section 52 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service[15] punishes habitual absenteeism and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service with suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second infraction.
In the instant case, however, this is not Sangalang's first offense. On April 25, 2014, in Investigation Reference No. 08-2013-ABR,[16] "Re: Report of Personnel Division dated November 29, 2013 regarding the Habitual Absenteeism and Tardiness of Christopher J. Sangalang," he was sternly warned that a repetition of his habitual absenteeism and tardiness will be dealt with more severely. Although the complaint was dismissed, the dismissal appeared to be due to insufficient notice or warning to Sangalang. The fact that Sangalang had incurred 63.5 days of absences from January to October 2013 was, however, undisputed as per records and his very own admission.[17]
Moral obligations, humanitarian considerations, among others, are not sufficient to warrant exemption of an employee from regularly reporting for work.[18] More so, in this case, where Sangalang failed to offer any explanation for his infractions, yet, had the gall to request that the imposition of his suspension be delayed in order for him to receive his benefits for 2018. Clearly, Sangalang's non-chalant attitude on his infractions do not deserve mercy and compassion from this Court. He, thus, deserves dismissal from the service, with forfeiture of benefits, except accrued leaves as prescribed for the second offense of frequent unauthorized absences.
It must be emphasized that the Court has imposed dismissal from the service on court employees who had gone absent without leave (AWOL) even if the offenses were their first. In Judge Loyao, Jr. v. Manatad,[19] a court interpreter was dismissed from the service due to unauthorized absences because there is no record of any application for leave of absence, despite being his first offense. We reached a similar stance in Leave Division-O.A.S., OCA v. Sarceno,[20] where Sarceno, Clerk III, went on AWOL again despite having expressed his repentance with a resolve to correct his shortcomings.
We have often held that by reason of the nature and functions of their office, officials and employees of the Judiciary must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust. Inherent in this mandate is the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment thereof for public service, if only to recompense the Government, and ultimately, the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary. Thus, to inspire public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees are, at all times, behooved to strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.[21]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds Christopher Marlowe J. Sangalang, Clerk III of the Court of Appeals, GUILTY of HABITUAL ABSENTEEISM and CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE and is hereby DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except earned leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to reinstatement or re-employment in any agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
Bersamin, C. J., Carpio, Peralta, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, and Inting, JJ., concur.
Jardeleza, J., on wellness leave.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on June 25, 2019 a Resolution, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled administrative matter, the original of which was received by this Office on July 25, 2019 at 3:23 p.m.
[1] Rollo, pp. 11-14.
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at 9-10.
[4] Id. at 22.
[5] Id. at 10.
[6] Id. at 5-8.
[7] Approved by Justice Romeo F. Barza, Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, Justice Mariflor Punzalan Castillo, Chairperson-Committee on Ethics and Special Concerns, and Justices Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla (on leave), and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, as Members of the Committee on Ethics and Special Concerns
[8] Rollo, p. 27.
[9] Id. at 24.
[10] Id. at 25.
[11] Issued on March 18, 2002 by the Court reiterating the Civil Service Commission's policy on habitual absenteeism (effective on April 1, 2002).
[12] Rollo, pp. 12-13.
[13] Leave Division-O.A.S., OCA v. Sarceno, 754 Phil. 1, 9 (2015).
[14] Id. at 10.
[15] CSC Memorandum No. 19, Series of 1999.
[16] Rollo, pp. 16-19.
[17] Id. at 17.
[18] Judge Monserate v. Adolfo, 478 Phil. 161, 165 (2004).
[19] 387 Phil. 337 (2000).
[20] Supra note 13.
[21] Re: Habitual Absenteeism of Rabindranath A. Tuzon, Offlcer-in-Charge (OIC)/Court Legal Researcher II, Branch 91, Regional Trial Court, Baler, Aurora, A.M. No. 14-10-322-RTC, December 5, 2017, 847 SCRA 512, 515.
Based on the report, from January 2017 to March 2018, Sangalang's total absences were 108.9 or an average of 7.26 days per month, exceeding the allowable absences of 2.5 days per month. From July 2017 to March 2018, he failed to file the required application for leave of absence for all incurred absences. Sangalang was warned both verbally and in writing of his absences, and was also reminded to file his application for leave of absence but such warnings were unheeded. With regard to his tardiness, he has been tardy 91 times in the 187 days he reported to office, almost half of the time he was present he was late.[2]
Further, in the Follow-up Report[3] dated May 9, 2018, Chief Judicial Staff Officer Tibayan-Castro also averred that on April 1, 2016, an Inter-Office Memorandum was issued to Sangalang which required him to explain in writing why he punched his bundy card but did not report to work, and failed to inform the office of his whereabouts. In his Answer[4] dated April 4, 2016, Sangalang admitted his oversight and begged the indulgence of the Office and promised that the same will not happen anymore.
Because of Sangalang's failure to improve his attendance in reporting for work despite warnings, Chief Judicial Staff Officer Tibayan-Castro recommended that Sangalang be suspended for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day for frequent unauthorized absences in violation of Section 50(B), Rule 10 of the Administrative Offenses and Penalties of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.[5]
On May 15, 2018, in the Report and Recommendation[6] docketed as INV. REF. No. 02-2018-RFB, Atty. Teresita R. Marigomen, Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, recommended that Sangalang be suspended for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day for unauthorized absences (habitual absenteeism).[7]
On June 8, 2018, Justice Romeo F. Barza, Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the Report and Recommendation dated May 15, 2018 and the records on Investigation Reference No. 02-2018-RFB.[8]
On July 27, 2018, the OCA referred to Sangalang the Letter dated April 30, 2018 of Ms. Juanita P. Tibayan-Castro, charging him of unauthorized absences, and required him to comment on the allegation against him.[9]
In his Answer[10] dated August 8, 2018, Sangalang manifested that he would not contest the charge of unauthorized absences against him. He manifested acceptance of the recommended suspension from office albeit requested that the suspension be imposed much later in order for him to receive the benefits due him for the year 2018. He also promised to be a better person after he reports back to work from suspension.
On January 17, 2019, the OCA recommended that the instant matter be redocketed as a regular administrative matter against Sangalang. It also recommended that Sangalang be found guilty of habitual absenteeism and be suspended from office for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day, with a warning that a repetition of the same offense shall warrant his dismissal from the service.
Administrative Circular No. 14-2002[11] provides that an employee in the Civil Service shall be considered habitually absent if he or she incurs "unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit under the law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive months during the year."
In the instant case, the OCA found that Sangalang had incurred absences totaling to 75.9 days spread from January to December 2017, and a total of 33 days of absences for the period January to March 2018.[12] From the total of 108.9 absences from January 2017 to March 2018, Sangalang failed to file the required application for leave of absence for all his absences incurred within the period of nine (9) months, or from July 2017 to March 2018. Thus, Sangalang's absences from July 2017 to March 2018, which totaled to 75 days are all unauthorized due to lack of leave approval. Significantly, when the OCA required Sangalang to answer the charges against him, he offered no explanation and unabashedly requested that his suspension be imposed on a later date to enable him to receive the benefits due him for 2018. The OCA observed that Sangalang was anything but remorseful in his comment on his unauthorized absences.
Time and again, this Court has made the pronouncement that any act which falls short of the exacting standards for public office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the Judiciary, shall not be countenanced. Public office is a public trust. Public officers must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. A court employee's repeated absences without leave constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service and warrants the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits.[13]
Conduct is prejudicial to the public service if it violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes - or tends to diminish - the people's faith in the Judiciary. By the habituality and frequency of his unauthorized absences, Sangalang did not live up to the degree of accountability, efficiency, and integrity that the Judiciary has required of its officials and employees. His position as Clerk III was essential and indispensable to the Judiciary's primary mandate of the proper administration of justice. This mandate dictated that he as a court employee should devote his office hours strictly to the public service, if only to repay and serve the people whose taxes were used to maintain the Judiciary. His habitual absenteeism severely compromised the integrity and image that the Judiciary sought to preserve, and, thus, violated this mandate.[14]
Section 52 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service[15] punishes habitual absenteeism and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service with suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second infraction.
In the instant case, however, this is not Sangalang's first offense. On April 25, 2014, in Investigation Reference No. 08-2013-ABR,[16] "Re: Report of Personnel Division dated November 29, 2013 regarding the Habitual Absenteeism and Tardiness of Christopher J. Sangalang," he was sternly warned that a repetition of his habitual absenteeism and tardiness will be dealt with more severely. Although the complaint was dismissed, the dismissal appeared to be due to insufficient notice or warning to Sangalang. The fact that Sangalang had incurred 63.5 days of absences from January to October 2013 was, however, undisputed as per records and his very own admission.[17]
Moral obligations, humanitarian considerations, among others, are not sufficient to warrant exemption of an employee from regularly reporting for work.[18] More so, in this case, where Sangalang failed to offer any explanation for his infractions, yet, had the gall to request that the imposition of his suspension be delayed in order for him to receive his benefits for 2018. Clearly, Sangalang's non-chalant attitude on his infractions do not deserve mercy and compassion from this Court. He, thus, deserves dismissal from the service, with forfeiture of benefits, except accrued leaves as prescribed for the second offense of frequent unauthorized absences.
It must be emphasized that the Court has imposed dismissal from the service on court employees who had gone absent without leave (AWOL) even if the offenses were their first. In Judge Loyao, Jr. v. Manatad,[19] a court interpreter was dismissed from the service due to unauthorized absences because there is no record of any application for leave of absence, despite being his first offense. We reached a similar stance in Leave Division-O.A.S., OCA v. Sarceno,[20] where Sarceno, Clerk III, went on AWOL again despite having expressed his repentance with a resolve to correct his shortcomings.
We have often held that by reason of the nature and functions of their office, officials and employees of the Judiciary must be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon that public office is a public trust. Inherent in this mandate is the observance of prescribed office hours and the efficient use of every moment thereof for public service, if only to recompense the Government, and ultimately, the people who shoulder the cost of maintaining the Judiciary. Thus, to inspire public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees are, at all times, behooved to strictly observe official time. As punctuality is a virtue, absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.[21]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds Christopher Marlowe J. Sangalang, Clerk III of the Court of Appeals, GUILTY of HABITUAL ABSENTEEISM and CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE and is hereby DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except earned leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to reinstatement or re-employment in any agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
Bersamin, C. J., Carpio, Peralta, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, and Inting, JJ., concur.
Jardeleza, J., on wellness leave.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on June 25, 2019 a Resolution, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled administrative matter, the original of which was received by this Office on July 25, 2019 at 3:23 p.m.
| | Very truly yours, |
(SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA | |
Clerk of Court |
[1] Rollo, pp. 11-14.
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at 9-10.
[4] Id. at 22.
[5] Id. at 10.
[6] Id. at 5-8.
[7] Approved by Justice Romeo F. Barza, Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, Justice Mariflor Punzalan Castillo, Chairperson-Committee on Ethics and Special Concerns, and Justices Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla (on leave), and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, as Members of the Committee on Ethics and Special Concerns
[8] Rollo, p. 27.
[9] Id. at 24.
[10] Id. at 25.
[11] Issued on March 18, 2002 by the Court reiterating the Civil Service Commission's policy on habitual absenteeism (effective on April 1, 2002).
[12] Rollo, pp. 12-13.
[13] Leave Division-O.A.S., OCA v. Sarceno, 754 Phil. 1, 9 (2015).
[14] Id. at 10.
[15] CSC Memorandum No. 19, Series of 1999.
[16] Rollo, pp. 16-19.
[17] Id. at 17.
[18] Judge Monserate v. Adolfo, 478 Phil. 161, 165 (2004).
[19] 387 Phil. 337 (2000).
[20] Supra note 13.
[21] Re: Habitual Absenteeism of Rabindranath A. Tuzon, Offlcer-in-Charge (OIC)/Court Legal Researcher II, Branch 91, Regional Trial Court, Baler, Aurora, A.M. No. 14-10-322-RTC, December 5, 2017, 847 SCRA 512, 515.