G.R. No. A.M. No. 2007-13-SC April 14, 2008
RE: HABITUAL ABSENTEEISM OF MR. ERWIN A. ABDON, Utility Worker II

FACTS

This administrative case concerns Erwin A. Abdon, a Utility Worker II detailed at the Records Division of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) of the Supreme Court. The OAS reported that Abdon incurred numerous unauthorized absences in the first semester of 2007: six days in January, five days in February, and twenty days in June. When required to explain, Abdon admitted the absences but attributed them to severe pain caused by acute gouty arthritis. In support, he submitted medical certificates from physicians of the Court’s Clinic Services covering some of the dates, specifically for January 9 and February 8, 2007, and for the entire month of June 2007.
The OAS, in its evaluation, confirmed that the absences supported by medical certificates were due to illness. However, it noted that all the cited absences remained unauthorized, as Abdon’s applications for leave were disapproved due to insufficient leave credits. The OAS also considered Abdon’s previous administrative sanction for unauthorized absences in a prior case. Nevertheless, it treated his health condition as a mitigating factor and recommended a penalty of one-month suspension for habitual absenteeism, with a stern warning.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Erwin A. Abdon is administratively liable for Habitual Absenteeism and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty considering the attendant circumstances.

RULING

The Court found Abdon guilty of habitual absenteeism. Administrative Circular No. 14-2002 defines an employee as habitually absent if they incur unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester. Abdon’s unauthorized absences in January, February, and June 2007 clearly met this criterion. The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust, and judiciary personnel must strictly observe official time to maintain public respect for the justice system. Punctuality is a duty, and absenteeism is impermissible.
On the penalty, the Court adopted the OAS recommendation, mitigating the standard penalty of suspension for six months and one day to one year for a first offense. The Court considered several equitable factors: Abdon’s length of service since 1994, his admission of infractions and expression of remorse, his promise to reform, and the corroborated medical reason for his absences. Critically, the Court noted he did not deliberately absent himself but had his leave applications denied due to lack of credits. Applying jurisprudence, the Court held that where a less severe penalty suffices, it should be imposed, considering the hardship on the employee and their family. Thus, a one-month suspension was deemed appropriate. Abdon was sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.