Balloguing v. Dagan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Judge Marita B. Balloguing alleged that respondent Cresente B. Dagan, Utility Worker I, incurred habitual absences and abandoned his work in September, October, and November 2014, and was on absence without official leave (AWOL) effective December 1, 2014. Judge Balloguing also claimed that court records and a rifle submitted as evidence in Civil Case No. 7355-V went missing, and Dagan, who had keys to the stockroom where the rifle was kept and previously used it as his sleeping quarter, was the likely culprit. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Dagan to comment on the complaint. Despite personal service of notices, Dagan failed to submit his comment. The Court, in a Resolution dated April 11, 2016, resolved to drop Dagan from the rolls effective December 1, 2014, without prejudice to the outcome of the administrative case. The OCA recommended that Dagan be dismissed from the service for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to public service, and that the previous resolution dropping him from the rolls be set aside. The Court re-docketed the case as a regular administrative matter. Judge Balloguing later informed the OCA that Dagan had surreptitiously returned the rifle on January 13, 2015, and that Dagan was detained for violation of the Comelec Gun Ban. The OCA recommended that Judge Balloguing be authorized to fill the vacant position. The Petition: The administrative complaint sought the dismissal of Dagan from the service and the declaration of his position as vacant.
Issue(s)
Whether Dagan is guilty of habitual absenteeism and abandonment of work. Whether Dagan is guilty of taking court records and evidence. Whether Dagan should be dismissed from the service.
Ruling
The Court adopts the recommendations of the OCA. Cresente B. Dagan is found guilty of habitual absenteeism, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and insubordination. He is dismissed from the service with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits. He is also ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his salary for three (3) months.
Ratio Decidendi
On Habitual Absenteeism and Abandonment of Work: A civil servant is considered habitually absent when unauthorized absences exceed 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester or three consecutive months in a year. While Dagan filed official leaves for September, October, and November 2014, he went on AWOL from December 2014 onwards. This prolonged absence constitutes habitual absenteeism and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, making a mockery of public service and diminishing the people's faith in the Judiciary. Similar to previous cases where employees were dismissed for AWOL and habitual absenteeism, Dagan's disservice warrants dismissal and perpetual ineligibility for public service. On Taking Court Records and Evidence: Dagan was twice directed by the OCA to comment on the allegation that he took court records and evidence. Despite receiving notice, he failed to file any comment. This inexcusable refusal to comment, despite ample opportunity, constitutes a waiver of his right to defend himself and demonstrates appalling disrespect for the Court's authority and regulations. Such failure to obey directives from the OCA amounts to insubordination, which is punishable by suspension. However, given the circumstances, the Court deems it appropriate to impose a fine equivalent to three months' salary instead of suspension, in addition to dismissal. On Dismissal from the Service: The cumulative effect of Dagan's habitual absenteeism, abandonment of work, and insubordination, coupled with the initial suspicion regarding the missing evidence, provides sufficient grounds for dismissal from the service. His actions are considered grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service. The Court emphasizes that public office is a public trust, and employees must perform their duties strictly and conduct themselves in a manner beyond suspicion to maintain the integrity of the Judiciary.
Main Doctrine
Habitual absenteeism and abandonment of work constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and warrant dismissal from the service, with forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification from re-employment. Failure to comment on administrative charges despite notice constitutes insubordination and waiver of the right to defense.