AM 2008 05 SC; (August, 2008) (Digest)
A.M. No. 2008-05-SC ; August 6, 2008
RE: FREQUENT UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCES OF MS. NAHREN D. HERNAEZ
FACTS
Ms. Nahren D. Hernaez, a Utility Worker II detailed to the Personnel Division of the Supreme Court’s Office of Administrative Services, was administratively charged with habitual absenteeism. Records from 2007 showed she incurred unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit for several months, including 15 days in February, 8 days in March, and 17.624 days in December. Her subsequent sick leave applications for these periods were disapproved by her supervisor for reasons such as late filing, overuse and abuse of leave privileges, and lack of supporting medical certificates for specific dates. The Office of Administrative Services also noted her prior disciplinary history for irregular attendance, including memoranda from 2003 and 2006 warning her against frequent absences.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Ms. Nahren D. Hernaez is administratively liable for habitual absenteeism.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Ms. Hernaez guilty of habitual absenteeism and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The legal logic is anchored on the Civil Service rule defining habitual absenteeism as incurring unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester or three consecutive months during the year. The Court determined that her pattern of absences in 2007 clearly violated this rule. Furthermore, the disapprovals of her leave applications were justified under administrative circulars, which empower heads of agencies to verify and disapprove claims of ill health if not satisfied with their validity, especially when filed after the absence has been incurred.
However, regarding the penalty, the Court noted that Ms. Hernaez had already been dropped from the rolls in a separate proceeding for Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL), making the originally recommended penalty of suspension impracticable. Applying precedent, the Court substituted the suspension with a fine. Considering the mitigating circumstance of her physical unfitness, as evidenced by her medical conditions, the Court imposed a reduced fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), to be deducted from any remaining benefits. This balanced the need for administrative accountability with equitable consideration of her health circumstances.