AM 2391; (August, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-2391 August 6, 1980
Executive Judge Antonio P. Paredes, complainant, vs. Leonardo D. Moreno, respondent.
FACTS
Executive Judge Antonio P. Paredes of the City Court of Manila filed an administrative complaint against respondent Leonardo D. Moreno, a court laborer, for prolonged unauthorized absence and neglect of duty. The respondent had been continuously absent without official leave starting March 16, 1980, despite having exhausted his leave credits. Judge Paredes issued a memorandum on April 24, 1980, directing Moreno to report for work immediately and explain his absences. Although Moreno received this memorandum on April 29, 1980, he neither reported for work nor submitted any explanation by June 2, 1980. This was not the first instance; a previous executive judge had similarly admonished Moreno in November 1979 for unauthorized absences from September 17, 1979, and had warned him against repeating such indifference to official duty under pain of administrative action.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Leonardo D. Moreno is administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service due to his prolonged unauthorized absences and failure to comply with lawful directives.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found his explanation for his absences untenable and unsatisfactory. He claimed that upon receiving the April 24 memorandum on April 29, he immediately left for Pangasinan due to a relative’s death and stayed to assist the bereaved family until June 10, 1980. However, this did not justify his initial absence starting March 16, nor did it excuse his failure to properly apply for leave or even inform his office of his situation during his entire period of absence. The Court emphasized that every public employee, regardless of rank, is duty-bound to serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. His misconduct, characterized by defiance of previous warnings and a clear neglect of duty, is prejudicial to the public service as it undermines public trust. Consequently, the Court imposed a one-month suspension without pay and issued a stern warning that any repetition would be dealt with more severely.