Re: Dupaya
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Presiding Judge of Branch 10, Regional Trial Court, Aparri, Cagayan, referred the case of Joylyn R. Dupaya, Court Stenographer III, to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) due to her "unsatisfactory" performance ratings for two consecutive periods: January to June 2011 and July to December 2011. The Judge noted Dupaya's continuous absence despite warnings and her failure to transcribe stenographic notes, causing delays in the preparation of decisions. Despite receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the first semester, Dupaya showed no initiative to improve. Procedural History: Dupaya failed to submit a written explanation or show improvement in her work. The Presiding Judge recommended that Dupaya be dropped from the rolls. The OCA agreed with the report and recommended the same, proposing that her position be declared vacant. The Petition: The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that Joylyn R. Dupaya be dropped from the rolls for obtaining two consecutive unsatisfactory performance ratings.
Issue(s)
Whether Joylyn R. Dupaya may be dropped from the rolls for obtaining two consecutive unsatisfactory performance ratings. Whether there was proper compliance with the requirements for dropping an employee from the rolls due to unsatisfactory performance.
Ruling
The Court agrees with the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. Joylyn R. Dupaya is dropped from the rolls for obtaining "Unsatisfactory" performance ratings for the periods from January to June 2011 and from July to December 2011. She remains qualified for benefits and reemployment in government, and her position is declared vacant.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Joylyn R. Dupaya may be dropped from the rolls for obtaining two consecutive unsatisfactory performance ratings: Yes. Section 2, Rule XII of the Omnibus Rules on Appointments and other Personnel Actions provides that an official or employee who is given two consecutive unsatisfactory ratings may be dropped from the rolls after due notice. The records show that Dupaya received "unsatisfactory" ratings for two consecutive periods, January to June 2011 and July to December 2011. This squarely falls within the grounds for separation from the service under the said rule. The Court has consistently held that unsatisfactory performance is a valid ground for dismissal from employment in the government service. Public accountability demands that public officers discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, loyalty, and efficiency, and incompetence and inefficiency have no place in public service, especially in the dispensation of justice. On whether there was proper compliance with the requirements for dropping an employee from the rolls due to unsatisfactory performance: Yes. The records demonstrate proper compliance with the requirements stipulated in Section 2, Rule XII of the Omnibus Rules on Appointments and other Personnel Actions. The Memorandum dated May 8, 2012, issued by Judge Agustin, provided Dupaya with sufficient warning and information that her frequent absences and poor performance could lead to an unsatisfactory performance rating. Despite this notice, Dupaya failed to submit any explanation or to demonstrate any improvement in her performance during the subsequent semester. Furthermore, the Court noted Dupaya's prior administrative sanctions, including an admonition and warning in 2008 and a reprimand in 2010, for similar offenses related to her failure to transcribe stenographic notes and violations of leave rules, underscoring a pattern of deficient performance and disregard for directives.
Main Doctrine
An employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance ratings may be dropped from the rolls after due notice, which requires informing the employee in writing of the unsatisfactory performance and warning that a succeeding unsatisfactory performance will warrant separation from the service.