EXECUTIVE JUDGE J. CESAR SANGCO, COMPLAINANT, VS. BIENVENIDO G. PALILEO, RESPONDENT.

In a letter dated January 12, 1979, Executive Judge Cesar S.
Sangco of the City Court of Manila brought to the attention of this Court the
administrative miscon­duct of respondent Bienvenido G. Palileo, a Janitor in
the Office of the Clerk of Court, City Court of Manila, wherein Judge Sangco
pointed out that despite the letter-notice dated July 12, 1977 of then
Executive Judge Avelino M. Constantino in which respondent was given 72 hours
to explain why he should not be adminis­tratively disciplined for his habitual
absences and undertimes, and notwithstanding respondent’s assurance in his
letter-answer dated July 19, 1977 not to incur further absences and undertimes,
he reneged in his promise as evinced by the following records of frequent
absences and undertimes subsequent thereto:

Likewise, Judge Sangco underscored the fact that on December 13,
1978, he issued an Office Memorandum bearing the same date ordering respondent
to report for work immediately and to explain within 72 hours why no
disciplinary action could be taken against him for repeated misdemeanors, and
although said Memorandum was received by respondent on December 15 which was a
Friday and he reported the following Monday (December 18), it was not until
December 20, which was way past the deadline given him that he submitted his
letter of explanation.  To make matters
worse, starting December 22, 1978 which was only two days after having
submitted his explanation with a promise “to avoid further ab­sences in
the future just to show my sincerity and my devotion to my task in the
Office,” he again absented himself from work continuously up to January 8
and on January 11, 1979, without even filing the required application for leave
of absence, much less advising the office the reason for his absence, which
misconduct of respondent, the Executive Judge considers as not only a flagrant
violation of Civil Service Law and Rules punishable under Presidential Decree
No. 6, but also a misdemeanor bordering on insubordination and contempt.  Considering that former Executive Judge
Avelino M. Constantino had already
warned respondent that a more severe and sterner action would be taken against
him for con­tinued acts of indifference to official duty and having
persistently acted in defiance of the aforecited warning, Executive Judge J.
Cesar Sangco strongly recommended that respondent’s services as Janitor in the
City Court of Manila, be terminated immediately in the interest of public
service.

By resolution dated February 2, 1979, We referred Executive Judge
Sangco’s letter-complaint to Judge Leocadio Magat, Jr. of the City Court of
Manila, for investigation, report and recommendation.  On April 5, 1979 by 1st Indorsement, Judge
Magat submitted his Investigation Report which reads thus:

“Having opted to submit to a formal investigation of the complaint (res­pondent’s letter dated
February 20, 1979), Mr. Palileo was given a chance to secure the services of a
counsel and after two postponements, the undersigned conducted a formal hearing
of this case on March 21 and March 26, 1979.

Mrs. Rose San Pedro, A Senior Clerk of the City Court of Manila
testified and submitted documentary evidences to show that on several dates for
the month of January 1978, respondent Mr. Palileo in­curred a total undertime
of 13 hours and 30 minutes; that for the month of February, he incurred a total
undertime of 19 hours and 45 minutes; for the month of March, 17 hours and 5
minutes; for the month of April, one hour and 54 minutes; for the month of may,
9 hours and 12 minutes; for the month of June, 1 hour; for the month of July, 4
hours and 46 minutes; for the month of August, 11 hours and 15 minutes; for the
month of September, 10 hours; for the month of October, 7 hours and 53 minutes;
for the month of November, 7 hours and 14 minutes; for the month of December, 6
hours and 9 minutes and for the month of January, 1 hour and 50 minutes; that
respondent incurred absences on February 13 and 24, 1978, March 9 and 13, 1978,
April 3, 4, 11, 12, 1978 and April 16 to 30, May 2, 3, 12, 19, 24, 26, 29 and
30, 1978, August 1 to 4, 1978, August 7, 8, 14, 17, 21 and 24 and on other
dates thereafter (Exhs. A-M).  Witness
testified that the absences incurred by the respondent were covered by approved
application for either sick leave or vaca­tion leave which were filed after the
res­pondent went on leave (T.S.N., March 21, 1976, p. 6); that the attention of
the respondent has been called either orally or verbally by the head of office
(Exhs. N-R); that on December 30, 1978, an office memo­randum was issued to the
respondent by the Executive Judge, Hon. J. Cesar Sangco re­quiring the
respondent to explain within 72 hours why no disciplinary action should be
taken against him for his repeated mis­demeanors (Exh. R); that on December 20,
1978, respondent filed a letter explanation with a promise to avoid future
absences but two days after, he again become absent continuously until January
5, 1979; that on July 12, 1977, then Executive Judge, Hon. Avelino M. Constantino also sent a memoran­dum to
the respondent herein for the same purpose
(Exh. N) and the respondent admitted his frequent absences (Exh. 0) and
explained that it was caused by his stomach ailment which oftentimes was
accompanied by dizziness; that Hon. Constantino found his explanation to be
unsatisfactory and a memorandum admonishing the respondent was issued on August
1, 1977 (Exh. P).

The respondent, Mr. Bienvenido Palileo, a janitor of the City Court
of Manila since 1976, testified that during his absences, he asked the
permission of the former Personnel Officer, Mrs. Perez, now deceased, and
sometimes he also asked the permission of the present Personnel Officer, Mrs. Cecilia
Paez; that for the absences he incurred, he filed the corresponding application
for leave therefor; that no application for leave is filed in connection with
the several “under-times” that he incurred which is an office
procedure but he testified that he has asked the permission of Mrs. Paez.

It appears from the evidence that the respondent has indeed
incurred frequent absences and also tardiness in reporting for duty.  The records, however, show that the several
absences that the respondent incurred were covered by applications for leave
which have been approved by the authorities con­cerned and therefore
authorized.  While this may be true, it
is believed however, that the respondent is also chargeable for the frequent
tardiness and the several undertimes that he has incurred since the same would
work prejudice to public service.  Being
a public servant, it behooves upon him to serve with the highest degree of
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.”

On the basis of his findings, Investigating Judge Leocadio Magat
recommended that the penalty of suspension for thirty (30) days be meted upon
respondent since the offense for which he is being charged is considered as
light offense pursuant to Civil Service Law and Rules.

The penalty recommended by the Investigating Judge is too light for the repeated
malefactions com­mitted by respondent Palileo. 
He should be dismissed from the service immediately.

A close examination of the records shows that in 1978 alone, even
after he was severely warned and admo­nished by Executive City Judge Avelino M.
Constantino, he incurred absences and undertimes as follows:

We also find in the records proof that respondent had habitually incurred
absences and undertimes in the year 1977 to wit:

Respondent’s explanation for his habitual absences and undertimes
due to personal difficulties and family problems are indeed not lawful grounds
and valid justi­fications as found by Judge Constantino in his memoran­dum to
the respondent dated August 1, 1977.  His explanation to the memorandum of
Judge Sangco dated December 13, 1978 wherein he claims that it was not his
intention to absent himself regularly but due to some personal circumstances
and personal problems, he could not but help to absent himself from the office
to settle these problems, is likewise not satisfactory, and notwithstanding the
repeated warnings to the res­pondent “to refrain from incurring further
absences under pain of disciplinary action” and admonitions” to
desist from committing further unjustified absences and/or undertimes otherwise
more severe and stern action shall be taken for respondent’s continued acts of
indifference to official duty,” the respondent persisted in his absences
and tardiness as indicated above.

Respondent claims that for his absences, he asked the permission
of the former Personnel Officers, one Mrs. Perez, now deceased, and sometimes
the permission of the present Personnel Officer, Mrs. Cecilia Paez who,
however, did not testify in the hearing of the case.  Although Mrs. Rose San Pedro, Senior Clerk,
declared that respondent’s unauthorized absences became authorized upon
respondent’s filing the applications for leave after his return to duty, not
even one such application had been submitted as proof that the absences were
authorized.  In 1978 alone, respondent
was absent at various dates for some 80 days which is much beyond the 15 days
sick leave and 15 days vacation leave that a government employee is entitled
to.  Respondent’s time records are not
even signed by him as shown in Exh. B (Feb. 1-14, 1978), Exh. C (Mar. 1-15,
1978), Exh. D (April 1-15), Exh. E (May 1-15), Exh. F (June 1­15), Exh. J (Oct.
1-15), Exh. K (Nov. 1-15, 1978).  We,
therefore, reject respondent’s claim that his absences were with the permission
of his superior officers including his habitual non-observance of office
orders.

Respondent’s misconduct and dereliction to duty are prejudicial
to the service and by his incorrigible and obstinate refusal to comply with the
orders of his superiors to report for work regularly, he has shown willful and
gross insubordination.  For these
offenses, a civil service employee may be dismissed from the service in
accordance with civil service rules and regulations.

Respondent, although a janitor in the City Court of Manila, is as
much duty-bound to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity,
loyalty and efficiency as all other public officers and employees, all of them
being held accountable to the people. 
And to give effect to the constitutional mandate on the accountability
of public officers and employees, the disciplining authority must impose
disciplinary action on any and all forms of official misconduct which under­mine
the trust and faith of the people to those in the public office.

WHEREFORE, finding respondent Bienvenido G. Palileo,
Janitor in the City Court of Manila, guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service and gross insubordination, We hereby impose upon him
the penalty of dismissal from the service.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr.,
Santos, Fernandez, Abad Santos, De Castro, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Fernando, Acting C.J., no part.