VICE-EXECUTIVE JUDGE DIVINA LUZ P. AQUINO-SIMBULAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. EDGARDO A. ZABAT, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, RESPONDENT.

Aquino-Simbulan versus Zabat

The Case

This is an administrative case filed by Vice-Executive Judge Divina Luz Aquino-Simbulan of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, against Sheriff Edgardo Zabat of the same court, charging him with grave misconduct for repeatedly leaving his official station during office hours without a travel order and without entry in the official locator logbook. The case matters because it restates the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust, and it shows how the Court calibrates the administrative offense and the penalty when the charge of grave misconduct is not fully made out but a violation of office regulations plainly is.

Procedural History

The case began as an affidavit-complaint filed by the complainant judge directly with the Office of the Court Administrator, which is the office that screens administrative complaints against judiciary personnel. The respondent answered by letter, denying the charges. The Office of the Court Administrator then evaluated the records and issued a report and recommendation: it found no sufficient basis to hold the respondent liable for gross misconduct or gross neglect of duties, but found him guilty of simple misconduct, and recommended a fine equivalent to his one-month salary because a one-month suspension could no longer be imposed in view of his retirement. The matter was then resolved by the Supreme Court itself, which agrees with the findings and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator.

Facts

The complainant conducted three attendance verifications. On the morning of September 15, 2003, the attendance logbook showed that the respondent had reported for work at 7:58 in the morning, yet a surprise confirmation at 11:20 in the morning found him absent from his official station, with no travel order and no entry in the official locator logbook. He explained that he had left at 11:10 in the morning because of illness, fetched by a friend and brought to his physician, who advised him to rest for two weeks; he later filed and obtained approval of his leave of absence for the period September 15 to 26.

On October 3, 2003, the complainant again looked for him and again found him out of his station despite the logbook showing that he had reported for work. He explained that he had logged out at 12:45 in the afternoon, took a late lunch, returned at five minutes to two, and proceeded to the courtroom of another judge to seek personal advice and to ask about that judge's ailing wife.

On March 24, 2004, a raffle of extra-judicial foreclosure cases for sheriffs was conducted at 11:00 in the morning in the complainant's courtroom, and the respondent was not present; he arrived at about ten minutes to noon. He first claimed that he had gone to the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities of San Fernando to return a writ of replevin, but when asked to produce evidence of the return he changed his reason and said he had assisted a personal friend who had a hearing there. In his later letter he claimed that he had entered his name in the locator logbook without indicating the purpose, that the administrative officer initialed it, and that nobody told him there was a raffle. The complainant charged him with grave misconduct and prayed for dismissal with forfeiture of benefits.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duties, warranting dismissal from the service.
• Whether or not the respondent's absences constitute habitual absenteeism under the standard of the Civil Service Commission.
• Whether or not the respondent is liable for simple misconduct for leaving his post without properly logging out and without a travel order.
• Whether or not the penalty of a fine equivalent to one month's salary may be imposed in view of the respondent's retirement.

Applicable Provisions

Memorandum Circular Number 4, Series of 1991, of the Civil Service Commission provides:

Employees in the civil service shall be considered habitually absent if they incur unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days of monthly leave credits for at least three (3) months in a semester or for at least three (3) consecutive months during the year.

This standard governs the first issue, because the Court uses it to test whether the respondent's repeated absences amount to habitual absenteeism.

Civil Service Commission Resolution Number 99-1936 dated August 31, 1999, provides:

Simple misconduct is a less grave offense carrying the penalty of suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first violation.

This fixes the offense and the range of the penalty once the Court concludes that the respondent is liable for simple misconduct only.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agrees with the Office of the Court Administrator that there is no sufficient basis to hold the respondent liable for gross misconduct or gross neglect of duties, the acts that would have warranted the supreme penalty of dismissal. The Court instead finds him guilty of simple misconduct.

On the second issue, the Court holds that the absences of the respondent cannot be said to be habitual under the standard of the Civil Service Commission, and that it has not been shown that he made false entries in his daily time records to cover up his absences or tardiness.

On the third issue, the Court reasons that the complainant is responsible for checking on the acts of the respondent during official hours, and that, corollary to this, the respondent has the duty to see to it that his superior, who presumes him to be doing his tasks in the ordinary course of business, is promptly informed of his whereabouts, especially when he leaves the office during office hours. As to the first infraction, the Court accepts that absence from his post on the ground of severe headache and dizziness is justified, but because he failed to inform his superior or anyone else of his reason for leaving, a doubt as to the veracity of his excuse persists; still, as conceded even by the complainant, the failure to follow office procedures on that first occasion was excusable because it was his first recorded infraction. As to the March 24, 2004 incident, the Court holds that he violated office regulations when he failed to log out before proceeding to the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities of San Fernando, because he had no official business to transact there, no special order having been handed to him for enforcement; even assuming otherwise, he should have secured a travel order and made known to his superior his purpose in proceeding to that court.

On the fourth issue, the Court, considering the length of service of the respondent, his openness to self-reformation, and his retirement, agrees with the recommended penalty of a fine equivalent to his one-month salary.

Doctrine

A public office is a public trust, and inherent in this mandate is the observance and the efficient use of every moment of the prescribed office hours to serve the public. Officials and employees of the judiciary must observe official time to inspire public respect for the justice system.

Habitual absenteeism is measured by the standard of the Civil Service Commission: unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days of monthly leave credits for at least three months in a semester or for at least three consecutive months during the year. Absences falling short of this standard are not habitual.

An employee who leaves his official station during office hours must promptly inform his superior of his whereabouts, so that appropriate measures can be put in place to ensure the continued smooth rendition of service to the public. Leaving the post without logging out, without a travel order, and without any official business to transact at the place visited constitutes simple misconduct, a less grave offense penalized by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first violation.

Disposition

The Court found Sheriff Edgardo Zabat guilty of simple misconduct and fined him an amount equivalent to his one-month salary, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a public office is a public trust, and every moment of prescribed office hours must be used efficiently in the service of the public. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between grave misconduct and simple misconduct, the standard for habitual absenteeism, and the rule that a fine may substitute for suspension when the respondent has already retired.