A.M. No. P-170 September 10, 1975
JUDGE JOSE P. GENIO, complainant, vs. PEDRO R. ABONALES, respondent.

FACTS

Municipal Judge Jose P. Genio of Ragay, Camarines Sur, filed an administrative complaint against his clerk-stenographer, Pedro R. Abonales, for incompetence, abandonment and dereliction of duty, dishonesty, and immorality. The specific allegations were that Abonales lacked stenographic skills, had been absent without official leave since October 1972, fraudulently collected salaries for unrendered services by submitting reconstructed daily time records, and cohabited with a woman not his wife. The case was referred to CFI Judge Abelardo Dayrit for investigation.
Judge Dayrit scheduled multiple hearings. Notices were sent to the respondent, but service proved difficult as he had moved from Ragay to Lopez, Quezon. Attempts to serve subpoenas through local police were unsuccessful in locating him, although his legitimate wife and daughter were notified. The wife, while refusing to accept the notice, indicated the respondent would appear on later dates. Despite these notifications, Abonales failed to appear at any scheduled hearing. Consequently, the investigation proceeded ex parte.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Pedro R. Abonales is administratively liable for the charges against him, warranting dismissal from service.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of incompetence, abandonment of office, dereliction of duty, and dishonesty. The investigation properly proceeded ex parte as the respondent, having been duly notified through multiple attempts including service to his family, forfeited his right to be heard by his voluntary non-appearance. He thus failed to refute the substantial evidence presented against him.
On the merits, the evidence substantiates the charges. Respondent is incompetent as he does not know stenography, a fundamental requirement for his position as clerk-stenographer, rendering him unfit for the role. He is guilty of abandonment and dereliction of duty, having been frequently absent since the complainant assumed office, failing to report for work since October 1972 without filing proper leave applications, and ignoring directives to produce court records. This conduct demonstrates a callous unconcern for his responsibilities, constituting gross neglect. Furthermore, he committed dishonesty by attempting to collect salary for October 1972 through a daily time record that falsely indicated rendered services. The charge of immorality was not given weight due to the lack of a sworn complaint from the alleged aggrieved party as required by law.
The Court emphasized that every public officer must discharge duties with diligence, integrity, and concern for the public interest. Respondent’s actions constitute serious misconduct. Accordingly, Pedro R. Abonales is DISMISSED from service with prejudice to reinstatement and with forfeiture of all rights and privileges.