A.M. No. 07-2-92-RTC; July 24, 2007
RE: HABITUAL ABSENTEEISM OF MS. EVA ROWENA J. YPIL, Court Legal Researcher II, Regional Trial Court, Branch 143, Makati City.

FACTS

This administrative case concerns respondent Eva Rowena J. Ypil, a Legal Researcher II, who incurred numerous unauthorized absences in 2004. Records from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) showed she was absent without authorization for 11 days in September, 10 days in October, 6 days in November, and 4 days in December, totaling 31 days. Her presiding judge disapproved her corresponding leave applications, primarily because the submitted medical certificates were deemed unverified and not credible.
Respondent contested the charge of habitual absenteeism. She claimed her absences were due to medical conditions stemming from a mauling incident in July 2004, which caused multiple contusions and hematoma, and subsequent ailments including hypertension, Grave’s disease, and other illnesses. She argued she filed the necessary leave applications and that for absences not exceeding five consecutive days, medical certificates were not strictly required. Her applications, however, were disapproved by her judge, who exercised discretion to verify the validity of her health claims.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Eva Rowena J. Ypil is administratively liable for habitual absenteeism.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of habitual absenteeism. The legal standard is defined by Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, s. 1998, which considers an employee habitually absent if they incur unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester. Respondent’s 31 unauthorized absences spread over four consecutive months in 2004 squarely met this definition.
The Court rejected her justifications. While she cited health reasons, the presiding judge, as the head of office, possessed the authority under civil service rules to verify and disapprove leave applications if unsatisfied with the supporting evidence. The judge’s disapproval, based on the unverified nature of the medical certificates, was a valid exercise of this prerogative. Consequently, those absences remained unauthorized. The Court emphasized the exacting standards of conduct required from judiciary personnel, as public office is a public trust. Habitual absenteeism undermines public service efficiency and erodes public faith in the judiciary.
Since respondent had already resigned from service, the recommended penalty of six months suspension could no longer be imposed. Instead, the Court modified the penalty and ordered her to pay a fine equivalent to three months’ salary, to be deducted from any remaining benefits or leave credits.