A.M. No. 10469-MC June 29, 1979
EXECUTIVE JUDGE J. CESAR SANGCO, complainant, vs. BIENVENIDO G. PALILEO, respondent.

FACTS

Executive Judge J. Cesar Sangco of the City Court of Manila filed an administrative complaint against respondent Bienvenido G. Palileo, a janitor in the same court, for habitual absenteeism and tardiness. The complaint detailed that despite a prior warning and a directive from a former Executive Judge in July 1977 to explain his frequent absences and undertimes, and despite Palileo’s written promise to reform, he continued to incur excessive absences and undertimes throughout 1978 and into January 1979. The records showed, for instance, absences on numerous days and significant undertimes, such as 13 absences and over 19 hours of undertime in February 1978 alone.
Judge Sangco issued another memorandum in December 1978, ordering Palileo to explain his continued misconduct. Although Palileo submitted a belated explanation with another promise to avoid future absences, he again absented himself continuously from December 22, 1978, to January 8, 1979, and on January 11, 1979, without filing any leave application. Judge Sangco deemed this a flagrant violation of civil service rules and an act bordering on insubordination, recommending Palileo’s dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Bienvenido G. Palileo should be held administratively liable for habitual absenteeism, tardiness, and insubordination, warranting the penalty of dismissal from the service.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Palileo guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and gross insubordination, and imposed the penalty of dismissal. The legal logic rests on the fundamental principle of accountability for all public officers and employees, regardless of rank. The Court emphasized that every government worker, including a janitor, is duty-bound to serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency under the Constitution.
The investigation established that Palileo’s absences in 1978 alone totaled approximately 80 days, far exceeding the allowable 15 days each of sick and vacation leave. His claim that his absences were authorized by personnel officers was rejected due to a lack of supporting evidence, such as approved leave applications. His time records for several periods were not even signed by him. His pattern of misconduct persisted despite repeated written warnings and admonitions from his superiors, demonstrating a willful and obstinate refusal to comply with lawful office orders. This constituted gross insubordination. The Court held that such incorrigible behavior, which undermines public trust and the efficiency of the judiciary, merits the severest administrative penalty to uphold disciplinary standards in the civil service.