ATTYS. GRACE S. BELVIS AND FRANCISCO D. ARAÑA, JR., COMPLAINANTS, VS. FERDINAND MIGUEL S. FERNANDEZ, CLERK III, RESPONDENT.

Belvis versus Fernandez

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Attorney Grace Belvis and Attorney Francisco Araña, Jr., respectively the Clerk of Court and the Assistant Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, against Ferdinand Miguel Fernandez, a Clerk III of Branch 152 of the same court, for frequent unauthorized absences and tardiness in violation of a Civil Service Commission memorandum circular. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats absenteeism and tardiness among judicial personnel, and how it calibrates the offense when the absences turn out to be covered by approved leave.

Procedural History

The complainants issued a memorandum to the respondent requiring him to explain his frequent absences, and later recommended his suspension for one month without pay with a warning. The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City endorsed the complaint favorably. The respondent then asked the Office of the Court Administrator for a copy of the complaint and time to explain, and the Supreme Court required him to file his comment. After he filed his manifestation, motion, and comment, the Court referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. The Office rendered its report, and the case was resolved by the Supreme Court in an administrative proceeding.

Facts

On 13 September 1994, a memorandum was issued to the respondent requiring him to explain why no administrative sanction should be taken against him for frequent unauthorized absences from October 1993 to September 1994, including three straight weeks of absence from 22 August to 9 September 1994. In his letter-explanation dated 15 September 1994, he pleaded for compassion and promised not to commit the same offense again.

Despite that promise, he reported late on 2, 3, and 4 January 1995 and did not report at all from 5 to 31 January 1995. In February 1995 he was absent on the 14th and 28th and late on the 15th, 16th, 17th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 27th. In March 1995 he was absent for a total of fourteen days, and on the few times he reported he was late. Required again to explain, he wrote on 31 March 1995 that his absences were due to personal problems, his wife having been accused of unlawfully trespassing on school premises and of taking items not belonging to her.

The complainants were not satisfied and recommended suspension for one month without pay with a warning. In his comment before the Court, the respondent claimed that all his absences were due to his own sickness or the sicknesses of immediate family members, and that they were supported by proper applications for leave, so that his vacation and sick leave credits had already been consumed. The Office of the Court Administrator found that although his absences exceeded the allowable monthly leave credit, they had been covered by approved applications, so they could not be deemed unauthorized; but it found him liable for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and habitually tardy under the applicable circular.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent may be held liable for frequent unauthorized absences when his absences were covered by approved applications for leave.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of habitual tardiness under the Civil Service Commission circular.
• Whether or not the penalty of suspension for one month without pay is justified.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Article Eleven of the 1987 Constitution provides:

A public office is a public trust. Public Officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

This is the standard against which the Court measured the respondent's conduct, and it is the constitutional basis for disciplining judicial personnel.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that the respondent's absences, having been covered by approved applications for vacation and sick leave, could not be deemed unauthorized, so he could not be considered a habitual absentee. The fact remained, however, that he incurred absences successively, which does not speak well of a disciplined, diligent, and industrious government employee, and he was held liable for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

On the second issue, the Court found him habitually tardy, as the records showed repeated tardiness across many months of 1994 and 1995.

On the third issue, the Court held that there was no question the respondent was prejudicing public service with frequent absences and tardiness, and that his conduct fell short of the constitutional standard, quoting the same provision on public office as a public trust. The Court stressed that the conduct of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility, and that it cannot countenance any act or omission that would violate public accountability or diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary. The recommended suspension for one month without pay was therefore justified.

Doctrine

Absences covered by approved applications for leave are not unauthorized, and an employee cannot be declared a habitual absentee on the strength of such absences. Nevertheless, successive absences, even if covered by leave, may amount to conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Habitual tardiness is a separate ground for liability under the Civil Service Commission circular. Every person connected with the administration of justice must observe the constitutional standard that a public office is a public trust, and any act or omission that diminishes the people's faith in the Judiciary is subject to discipline.

Disposition

The Court suspended the respondent, Clerk III Ferdinand Miguel Fernandez, from the service for one month without pay, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely, and the resolution was immediately executory.

Remember This

Approved leave removes the absences from the category of unauthorized, but it does not excuse the employee from the duty of diligence and accountability that the Constitution imposes on every public servant. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between habitual absenteeism and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and the special standard of conduct required of judicial personnel.