Re: Absence of Saddi
REVERSALFacts
The Antecedents: Mr. Gregorio B. Saddi, Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sasmuan, Pampanga, was dropped from the rolls effective January 2, 2007, for being absent without official leave (AWOL) since that date. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Procedural History: The Supreme Court initially issued a Resolution dated December 13, 2007, dropping respondent from the rolls. This Resolution is now subject to reconsideration. The Petition: Respondent claims he submitted his explanation, daily time records (bundy cards), application for leave, and medical certificate to the Presiding Judge on June 7, 2007. He alleges that directives from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) requiring him to explain his absences and submit bundy cards were not communicated to him by the Presiding Judge, who subsequently passed away. He discovered the OCA's letters and his own documents in the Judge's chambers after her death. He asserts he reported for work regularly and that his failure to submit bundy cards for January to September 2007 was due to the Judge's illness and official leave. He argues he acted in good faith and was deprived of due process. He pleads for reinstatement as the sole breadwinner for his family.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent's Motion for Reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with the directive to explain his unauthorized absences. Whether the respondent's continuous absence without approved leave warrants dismissal from service. Whether the penalty of suspension for two (2) months is a sufficient penalty for the offense committed.
Ruling
The Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The Resolution dated December 13, 2007, is SET ASIDE. Mr. Gregorio B. Saddi is SUSPENDED from office for two (2) months for absenteeism. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of substantial compliance: The Court found that the respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, with its attachments, constituted substantial compliance with the directive to explain his unauthorized absences. Although the respondent failed to provide a specific explanation for his absences from January to May 2007, the Court acknowledged that he had submitted the required bundy cards and application for leave for that period. The Court also noted that the respondent had not received the OCA's communications directly, which contributed to his failure to respond promptly, a situation exacerbated by the demise of the Presiding Judge. On the issue of dismissal from service: While Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations allows for an employee to be dropped from the rolls for continuous absence without approved leave for at least thirty (30) calendar days without prior notice, the Court has consistently given erring employees an opportunity to be heard. In this case, the Court found it too harsh to drop the respondent from the rolls, especially considering his claim of good faith and the circumstances surrounding his failure to receive the OCA's directives. The Court recognized that the respondent had been reporting for work regularly, as evidenced by a letter from the late Presiding Judge. On the issue of penalty: The Court held that frequent unauthorized absences constitute a grave offense under Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, punishable by suspension for the first offense and dismissal for the second. Administrative Circular No. 2-99 further emphasizes that absenteeism and tardiness shall be dealt with severely. However, considering that this was the respondent's first offense and in light of his plea for humane considerations, the Court deemed a suspension for two (2) months to be a sufficient penalty. The Court stressed that while human equations are considered, the exigencies of government service cannot be subordinated, and public accountability must be upheld.
Main Doctrine
While an employee may be dropped from the rolls for continuous absence without approved leave, the Court may grant reconsideration if the employee demonstrates good faith and substantial compliance in explaining absences, though a penalty may still be imposed.