A.M. No. P-17-3740. September 19, 2018.
RE: HABITUAL TARDINESS OF CLERK III JOHN B. BENEDITO, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES.

FACTS

Clerk III John B. Benedito was found guilty of habitual tardiness and suspended for ten (10) days without pay by Supreme Court Resolution dated August 16, 2017. He served his suspension from October 6, 2017, interpreting the penalty as ten working days, which concluded on October 23, 2017. However, upon inquiring with the Supreme Court’s Leave Division in January 2018, he was informed that the suspension should have been served as ten calendar days, which would have ended earlier. Benedito sought clarification, arguing that suspension is punitive and should only cover working days to effectively serve as a deprivation of the right to work and salary. He contended that serving suspension over calendar days, including weekends, would dilute its punitive effect.

ISSUE

Whether the ten-day suspension imposed as an administrative penalty should be computed based on calendar days or working days.

RULING

The Supreme Court, adopting the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) recommendation, ruled that the suspension penalty refers to ten calendar days. The Court clarified that the general rule and prevailing administrative practice interpret suspension periods as calendar days unless otherwise specified. This interpretation is supported by analogy to rulings on preventive suspension in administrative cases and principles in labor law favoring the computation of suspension periods in calendar days when the order is silent. The Court rejected Benedito’s argument that this computation negates the penalty’s punitive nature, explaining that suspension inherently involves significant consequences beyond mere absence from work. These include creating a gap in service continuity, disqualification from promotion during the suspension period, and the forfeiture of salary and other monetary benefits, including leave credits.
Nonetheless, the Court excused Benedito from the consequences of his erroneous interpretation. It found that the August 16, 2017 Resolution was silent on the type of days, and even the relevant civil service rules do not explicitly address it. As a Clerk III not learned in the law and acting without bad faith, his mistake was honest and induced through no fault of his own. Applying equitable principles from Wooden v. Civil Service Commission, the Court deemed him to have rendered full service for the working days of October 18, 19, 20, and 23, 2017, which he mistakenly believed were part of his suspension. No leave credits were to be deducted for those days. The administrative matter was declared closed and terminated.