Ramil v. Velasco
REVERSALFacts
The Antecedents: Ms. Lydia A. Ramil (Ramil), Court Stenographer III, failed to submit her bundy cards starting November 2005 and did not file any application for leave. She also failed to comply with directives from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to submit the required bundy cards and explain her unauthorized absences. Consequently, the Court issued a Resolution on November 13, 2006, dropping Ramil from the rolls effective November 2, 2005, for absence without official leave (AWOL). Procedural History: Ramil filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asserting she was not on AWOL as she was not continuously absent for 30 days and submitted supporting documents, including a Calendar of Cases, a Travel Order, her Performance Rating, and letters from the Clerk of Court enclosing her time cards and leave applications. The Court referred her motion to the OCA for evaluation. The OCA found that Ramil should not be considered on AWOL but recommended disciplinary action for her failure to comply with OCA Circular No. 7-2003 and OCA directives, and for incomplete/conflicting entries in her DTRs. The Court adopted this recommendation, setting aside the November 13, 2006 Resolution, directing the release of withheld salaries, and referring the matter for appropriate disciplinary action. The OCA, after its Legal Office reviewed the case, recommended that Ramil be found guilty of violating OCA Circular No. 7-2003 (insubordination) and simple negligence for incomplete/conflicting DTR entries, proposing penalties of suspension and a fine, with her first offense as a mitigating circumstance. The Petition: The Court required Ramil to manifest if she was willing to submit the case for decision based on the pleadings, and upon her failure to do so, deemed the case submitted for resolution. The Court agreed with the OCA's findings but modified the penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether Ms. Lydia A. Ramil should be considered on Absence Without Leave (AWOL). Whether Ms. Lydia A. Ramil is guilty of simple neglect of duty for incomplete/conflicting entries in her Daily Time Records (DTRs). Whether Ms. Lydia A. Ramil is guilty of insubordination for failure to comply with OCA Circular No. 7-2003 and OCA directives.
Ruling
The Court found Ms. Lydia A. Ramil guilty of simple neglect of duty and insubordination. She was ordered suspended for one month and one day without pay and other benefits, with a stern warning against repetition of similar offenses. Clerk of Court Atty. Ray U. Velasco was ordered to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for his failure to duly supervise employees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Absence Without Leave (AWOL): The Court found that Ramil should not be considered on AWOL. While she failed to submit her bundy cards and applications for leave for an extended period, the submission of her Calendar of Cases and a Travel Order indicated that she was performing her duties as a stenographer during the period in question. The Court acknowledged that her failure to submit the required documents was a violation of office rules, but the evidence presented in her Motion for Reconsideration demonstrated that she was not continuously absent from work for at least 30 days, which is a prerequisite for being declared on AWOL. Therefore, the initial resolution dropping her from the rolls was set aside. On the issue of Simple Neglect of Duty: The Court found Ramil guilty of simple neglect of duty. This was based on her failure to regularly and faithfully punch her bundy card and to submit the same at the end of each month as mandated by OCA Circular No. 7-2003. The Court noted that when her time cards were eventually submitted, they contained incomplete or handwritten entries, with Ramil offering certifications that she forgot to punch her bundy card on several occasions. The Court held that such certifications could not shield her from administrative liability, as simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference. Her actions demonstrated a lack of candor and a disregard for office rules. On the issue of Insubordination: The Court found Ramil guilty of insubordination for her persistent failure to comply with OCA directives. Despite repeated letters from the OCA Leave Division and a warning from Clerk of Court Atty. Velasco, Ramil did not take initiative to submit her bundy cards. It was only after the Court issued a Resolution dropping her from the rolls that she took action by filing a Motion for Reconsideration and submitting her documents. The Court emphasized that every officer or employee in the judiciary is duty-bound to obey the orders and processes of the Supreme Court without the least delay, and refusal to comply constitutes insubordination, which warrants disciplinary action. Ramil's excuse of forgetting to punch her bundy card was deemed unworthy of consideration in light of the repeated demands and warnings.
Main Doctrine
Failure to submit Daily Time Records (DTRs)/Bundy Cards and to comply with directives constitutes insubordination and simple neglect of duty, warranting disciplinary action such as suspension and fine, with length of service and absence of prior offenses considered as mitigating circumstances.