IN RE: REMEDIOS D. LAUS, COURT INTERPRETER II, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LEYTE.

Remedios Laus

The Case

This is an administrative matter concerning Remedios D. Laus, a Court Interpreter II in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch III, at Palo, Leyte. The Supreme Court, acting on its own initiative through the Office of the Court Administrator, took up her continuous absence without leave and her abandonment of her post. The case matters because it shows how the Court treats absenteeism and dereliction of duty in the judiciary: a court employee who simply stops reporting for work, and who ignores a direct order to return and explain, may be summarily dismissed from the service.

Procedural History

This was not an appeal from a lower court. It was an administrative proceeding that arose from the record of the Supreme Court itself, which showed the continuous absence without leave of Remedios D. Laus. On April 8, 1980, Deputy Court Administrator Arturo B. Buena, acting through District Judge Godofredo Quimsing, directed her to report back to duty and to explain in writing why no administrative action should be taken against her, warning that failure to comply would mean she would be considered dropped from the service because of her prolonged absence without leave. Upon the instruction of Judge Quimsing, the Deputy Clerk of Court, Aurora A. Zeta, reported by letter dated April 28, 1980 that the directive had been personally received by Remedios D. Laus on April 21, 1980, but that she had neither returned to work nor submitted the required explanation. The matter was then resolved by the Supreme Court in its administrative capacity.

Facts

Remedios D. Laus held the position of Court Interpreter II in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch III, at Palo, Leyte. The record showed that she was absent without leave from May 5, 1978 to October 9, 1978. She then returned, but on March 1, 1979 she again abandoned her work and did not report back to duty.

On April 8, 1980, Deputy Court Administrator Arturo B. Buena, through District Judge Godofredo Quimsing, directed her to report back to duty and to explain in writing why no administrative action should be taken against her. She was expressly warned that if she failed to do so, she would be considered dropped from the service because of her prolonged absence without leave.

The directive was personally received by Remedios D. Laus on April 21, 1980. Despite this, she neither came back to work nor submitted any explanation. The Deputy Clerk of Court, Aurora A. Zeta, reported this failure by letter dated April 28, 1980, upon the instruction of Judge Quimsing.

Issues

• Whether or not Remedios D. Laus, having failed to report back to duty and to explain in writing why no administrative action should be taken against her, should be dismissed from office for absenteeism without leave and dereliction of duty.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statute or rule. It rests on the administrative authority of the Supreme Court over its personnel and on the directive issued to the employee. The Court states the consequence of her failure in these words:

Having failed to report back to duty and to explain in writing why no administrative action should be taken against her, Remedios D. Laus should be summarily dismissed from office.

This sentence is the operative rule the Court applied: noncompliance with a lawful directive to return and explain, on top of prolonged absence without leave, warrants summary dismissal.

Ruling

On the sole issue, the Court ruled against Remedios D. Laus. It found that she had been absent without leave from May 5, 1978 to October 9, 1978, that she abandoned her work on March 1, 1979 and never reported back, and that she ignored the April 8, 1980 directive which she personally received on April 21, 1980. Having failed to report back to duty and to explain in writing why no administrative action should be taken against her, the Court held that she should be summarily dismissed from office. The Court characterized her conduct as absenteeism without leave and dereliction of duty, and ordered her dismissal on that ground.

Doctrine

A court employee who is absent without leave for a prolonged period, and who abandons her post, commits absenteeism without leave and dereliction of duty. When such an employee is directed to report back to duty and to explain in writing why no administrative action should be taken against her, and she receives the directive but neither returns nor explains, she may be summarily dismissed from the service. The rule for a Bar answer is simple: prolonged absence without leave, compounded by disregard of a lawful order to return and explain, is a ground for summary dismissal. Every employee in the judiciary owes the public continuous and faithful service, and the Supreme Court enforces that duty through its administrative power over court personnel.

Disposition

Remedios D. Laus was dismissed as Court Interpreter II in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch III, at Palo, Leyte for absenteeism without leave and dereliction of duty.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that an employee who fails to report back to duty and to explain in writing why no administrative action should be taken against her should be summarily dismissed from office. Examiners use this case to test the ground of absenteeism without leave and dereliction of duty, and the consequence of ignoring a direct order from the Court Administrator.