G.R. No. A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2353-RTJ; September 6, 2010
Senior State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco, Petitioner, vs. Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, then Presiding Judge of the Caloocan RTC, Branch 121, was charged administratively by petitioner Senior State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco for unauthorized practice of law, unauthorized absences, and falsification of certificate of service. The Supreme Court referred the case for investigation, focusing on the remaining charges of unauthorized absences and falsification after the practice of law charge was deemed meritless. The Investigating Justice found respondent guilty of unauthorized absences on May 3 and August 3, 2005, for attending hearings in Manila RTC, Branch 26, where she was the private complainant in a libel case against the petitioner, without filing the required leave of absence. The Investigating Justice recommended reprimand for these absences and dismissal of the falsification charge, a recommendation initially adopted by the Court.
Respondent filed motions for partial reconsideration. She argued her attendance on May 3, 2005, was a continuation of a subpoenaed hearing, and her brief absence on August 3, 2005, was compensated by working beyond office hours. The Court denied her first motion, upholding that attendance in a personal capacity required a formal leave. In her second motion, respondent invoked Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 14, Series of 1999, which allows undertime of less than one hour without the need to file a leave application, provided it is deducted from vacation leave credits.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Angeles incurred unauthorized absences on May 3 and August 3, 2005, warranting administrative sanction.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the second motion for partial reconsideration and dismissed the complaint. The legal logic centered on the applicability of civil service rules to judiciary personnel concerning leave administration. The Court held that CSC Memorandum Circular No. 14, s. 1999, which governs all government officials and employees, is applicable to members of the judiciary. Under this circular, undertime of less than one hour does not require the filing of a formal leave application, as the time is merely deducted from vacation leave credits.
Applying this rule, the Court found that respondent’s attendance at the Manila RTC on the specified dates, which constituted absences from her official station, fell under the category of undertime governed by the CSC circular. Since there was no allegation or proof that these absences exceeded one hour, the failure to file a leave of absence was not a violation of any rule. Consequently, the absences could not be deemed “unauthorized.” The Court thus set aside its prior resolutions, as the foundational basis for the administrative charge—the absence of a filed leave—was rendered legally untenable by the prevailing civil service regulation. The dismissal of the complaint was without prejudice to the proper deduction of corresponding leave credits.