Re: Joyas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This administrative matter concerns Atty. Marilyn B. Joyas, clerk of court V in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 16. Her daily time record for November 2004 indicated unauthorized leave from the 15th to the 30th of that month, and she failed to submit her December 2004 time record or file any leave application. This prolonged absence without official leave (AWOL) disrupted the normal functioning of the court and was considered prejudicial to the best interests of public service. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially contacted Atty. Joyas via telegram on April 1, 2005, requesting her time records and/or leave applications, to which she did not comply. Subsequently, on May 23, 2005, the OCA, through the presiding judge of Branch 16, RTC Manila, formally required Atty. Joyas to explain her unauthorized absences in writing. She responded on July 11, 2005, stating she had notified her presiding judge of her intention to retire effective November 15, 2004. However, verification by the Employees Welfare and Benefits Division revealed that Atty. Joyas had not completed the necessary requirements for her retirement application. The Petition: Based on the findings, the OCA recommended that Atty. Joyas be dropped from the rolls and her position declared vacant, citing Rule XVI, Section 63 of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, which mandates separation from service for continuous absence without approved leave for at least thirty calendar days. The Supreme Court, in considering this administrative case, also treated it as a disciplinary proceeding against Atty. Joyas as a member of the Philippine Bar, pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC. The Court found her conduct to be a gross disregard of her duties and a violation of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, leading to her being dropped from the rolls, her position declared vacant, and a fine of P5,000 imposed for her unprofessional conduct.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Marilyn B. Joyas should be dropped from the rolls and her position declared vacant due to continuous absence without official leave. Whether Atty. Joyas' conduct as a court employee and member of the bar warrants disciplinary action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court approved the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. Atty. Marilyn B. Joyas, Clerk of Court V of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 16, was dropped from the rolls and her position declared vacant. She was also ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00 for her unprofessional conduct as a member of the bar.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of being dropped from the rolls: The Court held that under Rule XVI, Section 63 of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, an official or employee continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls without prior notice. Atty. Joyas' unauthorized absences from November 15, 2004, clearly fall within this provision, as she was continuously absent without approved leave for more than thirty (30) calendar days. Her claim of intending to retire did not absolve her from the requirement of filing a proper application and completing the necessary requirements, nor did it excuse her prolonged absence without official approval. On the issue of whether Atty. Joyas' conduct as a court employee and member of the bar warrants disciplinary action: The Court emphasized that a court employee's prolonged unauthorized absence disrupts the normal function of the organization and is prejudicial to the best interest of public service. Such conduct contravenes a public servant's duty to serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. It also manifests disrespect for superiors, colleagues, the service, and the public at large. Atty. Joyas' actions demonstrated a gross disregard and neglect of her official duties and a failure to adhere to the high standards of public accountability expected of government service. Furthermore, Atty. Joyas' non-feasance was aggravated by her status as a member of the bar. Her conduct ran counter to Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. As an officer of the court, a lawyer is charged with the primary task of assisting in the speedy and efficient dispensation of justice and should not engage in practices that impede or obstruct its realization. Her prolonged unauthorized leave effectively amounted to abandoning her office, which is contrary to this duty. Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, the administrative case against Atty. Joyas as a court personnel was also considered a disciplinary proceeding against her as a member of the bar. This dual aspect of her role required adherence to both civil service rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Given the clear violation of civil service rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court found it proper to drop Atty. Joyas from the rolls, declare her position vacant, and impose a fine for her unprofessional conduct as a member of the bar. This action serves to uphold the integrity and efficiency of the judiciary and public service.
Main Doctrine
A court employee continuously absent without approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar days shall be considered on absence without official leave (AWOL) and shall be separated from the service or dropped from the rolls. Such conduct is prejudicial to the best interest of public service and contravenes a public servant's duty to serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. Furthermore, a lawyer who engages in such conduct, especially as a court employee, violates Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.