AM 2004 41 SC; (January, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 2004-41-SC; January 13, 2005
RE: MEMORANDUM REPORT OF ATTY. THELMA C. BAHIA AGAINST MS. DOROTHY SALGADO
FACTS
This administrative case concerns Court Stenographer IV Dorothy D. Salgado for habitual absenteeism. Salgado incurred 45 days of absence from August to October 2004. Although she submitted a medical certificate citing dysfunctional uterus bleeding and hemorrhoids, her sick leave application was disapproved. Critically, she failed to notify her office of her condition or whereabouts during her entire absence, despite her office’s attempts to contact her. This was not her first offense; she had previously incurred 43 days of continuous absence without leave in 2003. She was directed to explain her actions and subsequently reported back to work on October 25, 2004.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Dorothy D. Salgado is administratively liable for Habitual Absenteeism.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Salgado guilty of Habitual Absenteeism. The legal logic is anchored on her violation of civil service rules governing leaves. While her illness was supported by a medical certificate, Rule XVI, Section 16 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing E.O. 292 mandates that notice of absence must be sent to the immediate supervisor. Her complete failure to inform her office constituted contemptuous behavior and justified the disapproval of her leave application, rendering her 45-day absence unauthorized. Under Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 23, s. 1998, an employee is habitually absent if unauthorized absences exceed the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credits for at least three months in a semester. Her absences, spanning three consecutive months, clearly meet this definition, classified as a grave offense.
The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust, and such conduct causes inefficiency and diminishes public faith in the judiciary. While her actions warranted separation, mitigating circumstances were considered: her immediate return to work after being directed, her genuine illness, and her long service since 1981. Applying the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, which prescribe suspension for six months and one day to one year for a first offense of this grave charge, the Court imposed the minimum penalty of six months and one day suspension without pay. She was also denied salary for the unauthorized absence period but was allowed to receive salaries and benefits accruing after her return, with a stern warning that repetition would lead to dismissal.