G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-14-3260 (Formerly A.M. No. 12-2-38-RTC)
Date: September 16, 2014

Case Parties:
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant,
vs.
EDGAR S. CRUZ, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Guagua, Pampanga, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a report by the Leave Division, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), dated February 6, 2012, indicating that respondent Edgar S. Cruz, a Clerk III, incurred three unauthorized absences in November and four unauthorized absences in December 2011. The OCA required Cruz to comment. In his explanation, Cruz stated his absences were due to circumstances beyond his control, primarily needing to attend to his children as his wife works overseas, and due to illness, for which he submitted medical certificates for specific dates in November 2011. He apologized and promised to inform his superiors of future absences. An evaluation of his leave record further revealed that from January to April 2012, Cruz incurred a total of thirty (30) absences, including disapproved leaves and leaves without pay. Notably, the Court had previously found Cruz guilty of gross insubordination, neglect of duty, misconduct, absenteeism, and tardiness in a separate administrative case (A.M. No. P-12-3040), for which he was suspended for one year without pay and sternly warned.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Edgar S. Cruz is administratively liable for Habitual Absenteeism.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Edgar S. Cruz GUILTY of HABITUAL ABSENTEEISM. The Court adopted the OCA’s findings and recommendation. Cruz admitted to skipping work without filing the required leave applications. While he submitted medical certificates, he failed to file duly accomplished and approved leave applications as mandated by the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Civil Service Rules). His pattern of unauthorized absences from November 2011 through April 2012, particularly the thirty absences in the first four months of 2012, established habitual absenteeism. This constituted a second offense, as he had previously been penalized for similar infractions. Under Section 46(b) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, frequent unauthorized absence is a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the second offense. The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust and such infractions compromise efficiency and prejudice public service. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED Edgar S. Cruz from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality.