SERGIO V. EAMIGUEL, O.I.C., COMPLAINANT VS. EDILBERTO HO, STAFF ASSISTANT II, RESPONDENT. DECISION

Eamiguel versus Ho

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Sergio Eamiguel, the officer in charge of a regional trial court branch in Naval, Biliran, against Edilberto Ho, a clerk of that court. The complaint charges absenteeism, insubordination, misconduct, and non observance of office directives, arising from the respondent's unauthorized absences and his practice of signing the office logbook and then leaving his post. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct demanded of every employee of the judiciary, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, and because it shows how dishonesty in recording attendance aggravates an already serious offense of habitual absenteeism.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed with the Supreme Court as an administrative matter. The Court referred it to Judge Briccio Aguilos, Junior, the acting presiding judge of the regional trial court branch concerned, for investigation, report, and recommendation. Judge Aguilos conducted the investigation and submitted his report finding the respondent guilty of irregular attendance and absences, and recommending suspension for a minimum of six months to a maximum of one year. The Office of the Court Administrator reviewed the report, affirmed the factual findings, but disagreed with the recommended penalty. It noted that the Court, sitting en banc, had earlier ordered the respondent dropped from the service effective November 2, 1995, on account of his absence without official leave, without prejudice to the final outcome of the pending case. The Office of the Court Administrator then recommended dismissal from the service. The matter thus reached the Supreme Court for decision on the proper penalty.

Facts

On August 16, 1996, Sergio Eamiguel filed a complaint against Edilberto Ho, a clerk detailed at the regional trial court branch in Naval, Biliran, concerning the respondent's unauthorized absences from December 1995 until the early part of 1996. The complaint recounted that the respondent was absent without leave for the whole of December 1995, except on December 1 when he was present in the morning, and that in the afternoon of that day he superimposed his signature on that of the court interpreter in the office logbook.

In January 1996, the respondent registered in the logbook in the morning and then went out without returning, and did the same in the afternoon, on several dates. On January 10 he registered with the mark on leave. He did not report for work on many other dates that month. In February and March 1996, he again registered in the morning and then left, and he was absent without leave on numerous dates. On February 8 he recorded that he was present on February 7 when in fact he was absent, and on February 15 he recorded presence on February 14 when he was likewise absent. In April 1996, he repeatedly registered in the morning and in the afternoon and then went out and did not come back, and he was absent on other dates.

The complaint further alleged that on January 11, 1996, the complainant sent the respondent a letter requesting him to report immediately because of the voluminous work to be done, but the respondent ignored the request and uttered invectives against the complainant. On January 12, 1996, the complainant issued a memorandum requiring the respondent to explain in writing within seventy two hours why no administrative sanction should be imposed, and the respondent again ignored it. In his answer, the respondent denied the allegations, claimed that all his leaves were approved and that he never left the office after signing the logbook, and asserted that the complainant was moved by ill will, hatred, and malice, suspecting him of reporting that the complainant falsified his monthly report of pending cases.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of dishonesty in making it appear in the logbook that he was present on dates when he was in fact absent.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits is the proper penalty.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any specific statutory provision. It rests on the settled rule that every official and employee of the judiciary, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty, and that frequent absences without authorization prejudice public service. This standard governs the respondent's conduct and supplies the measure of the penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator and held that the respondent's frequent absences without authorization prejudiced public service. The investigating judge had found, on documentary and testimonial evidence, that the respondent committed frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours, and the Court affirmed these factual findings.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent is guilty not only of habitual absenteeism but also of dishonesty. He made it appear on record that he was present during those times when he was in fact absent by signing his name in the logbook and then leaving the office thereafter. The Court declared that it will not tolerate such dishonesty committed by a court employee, because every official and employee of the judiciary, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty.

On the third issue, the Court held that the respondent's offense warrants his dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits. The earlier order dropping him from the service on account of absence without official leave did not include forfeiture of all the benefits due him upon separation, but the investigation established other acts inimical to the service which deserve a stiffer penalty. The Court thus adopted the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator.

Doctrine

Every official and employee of the judiciary, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, and must be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty. Frequent unauthorized absences from duty during regular office hours constitute inefficiency and dereliction of duty that prejudice public service. When an employee signs the office logbook to make it appear that he was present on dates when he was in fact absent, he is guilty not only of habitual absenteeism but also of dishonesty, and such dishonesty committed by a court employee will not be tolerated. The offense of habitual absenteeism coupled with dishonesty warrants dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits, and the penalty is not erased by an earlier order dropping the employee from the service for absence without official leave, because that earlier penalty did not include forfeiture of benefits.

Disposition

The Court dismissed Edilberto Ho from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch of the government, including government owned and controlled corporations.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that every employee of the judiciary, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty, so that signing a logbook to conceal an absence is dishonesty, not mere absenteeism. Examiners like to use this case on the conduct required of judiciary personnel and on the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of benefits for habitual absenteeism compounded by dishonesty.