Dayaon v. De Leon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Judge Lucina Alpez Dayaon reported respondent Jesusa V. De Leon, Court Stenographer III, for habitual absenteeism without approved leave for the periods of April 22, 2010 to May 5, 2010, and May 27, 2010 to June 25, 2010. Judge Dayaon noted that De Leon failed to submit a written explanation for her absences and to transcribe stenographic notes on time, despite a Memorandum issued on May 5, 2010. This pattern of absenteeism and delay in transcribing notes was recurring, with previous memoranda issued in 2008 and 2009 indicating excessive absences and tardiness. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed De Leon to file a comment on the report of her unauthorized absences. In her comment, De Leon admitted her absences from April to June 2010, attributing them to her children's illness and financial difficulties, which prevented her from filing official leave requests and covering transportation expenses. She stated she returned to work on June 28, 2010, and had only three pending stenographic notes. The OCA found De Leon habitually absent but recommended a mitigated penalty of one month suspension without pay with a stern warning, considering her length of service and family circumstances as mitigating factors. The Petition: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for resolution based on the OCA's findings and recommendation.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Jesusa V. De Leon is guilty of habitual absenteeism. Whether the mitigating circumstances presented by respondent warrant a reduction in the penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Jesusa V. De Leon guilty of habitual absenteeism and imposed the penalty of suspension for one (1) month without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Jesusa V. De Leon is guilty of habitual absenteeism: The Court affirmed the findings of the OCA that De Leon was habitually absent. Administrative Circular No. 14-2002 defines habitual absenteeism as incurring unauthorized absences exceeding 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester or at least three consecutive months during the year. De Leon incurred unauthorized absences for three consecutive months in 2010: seven days in April, fourteen days in May, and eighteen days in June. These admitted and certified absences clearly fall under the definition provided by AC 14-2002. The Court emphasized that such absences constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service, as reported by the Presiding Judge. On whether the mitigating circumstances presented by respondent warrant a reduction in the penalty: The Court acknowledged that while habitual absenteeism for a first offense typically carries a penalty of suspension for six months and one day to one year, mitigating circumstances can warrant leniency. The Court considered De Leon's length of service in the judiciary (18 years), her acknowledgment of her infractions, and her family circumstances, specifically her children's illness and financial difficulties, as mitigating factors. However, the Court also noted De Leon's prior infractions in 2008 and 2009, including unauthorized absences, delay in transcribing notes, and disobedience to lawful orders, which tempered the extent of mitigation. Consequently, the Court adopted the OCA's recommendation for a reduced penalty of one month suspension without pay, coupled with a stern warning, as a more appropriate sanction given the totality of the circumstances, balancing the need for discipline with humanitarian considerations.
Main Doctrine
Habitual absenteeism, defined as incurring unauthorized absences exceeding 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester or three consecutive months during the year, warrants sanctions. While the first offense typically carries a suspension of six months and one day to one year, mitigating circumstances such as length of service, acknowledgment of infraction, and family circumstances may warrant a lesser penalty, including a suspension of one month without pay with a stern warning.