AM 94 3 20 Mctc; (March, 1995) (Digest)
A.M. No. 94-3-20-MCTC. March 17, 1995. Re: Report on the Habitual Absenteeism of Ms. Teresita S. Sabido, Court Stenographer, 4th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Camalig-Jovellar, Albay.
FACTS:
Judge Pedro R. Soriao, Presiding Judge of the 4th MCTC of Camalig-Jovellar, Albay, charged his court stenographer, Ms. Teresita S. Sabido, with habitual absenteeism. He alleged that from January to September 1993 alone, she incurred 100 days of absence without his approval, and her Daily Time Records over two to three years reflected a similar pattern. Judge Soriao claimed this conduct lowered court morale and recommended her detail elsewhere and a fine equivalent to one month’s salary.
In her defense, Ms. Sabido argued that her absences were supported by medical certificates approved by the Supreme Court’s Leave Section. She contended the complaint was motivated by Judge Soriao’s personal dislike and prejudice, aimed at removing her from her position.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Ms. Teresita S. Sabido is administratively liable for habitual absenteeism and neglect of duty.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Ms. Sabido guilty. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Executive Judge, Rafael P. Santelices. The investigation confirmed a longstanding pattern of frequent, unauthorized absences, noting she had been previously cited for contempt for similar conduct in 1991 and was often absent on Fridays. The Court held that even if some absences were later converted to leave, the sheer volume and frequency demonstrated habitual absenteeism.
The legal logic rests on the fundamental principle that a public office is a public trust under the Constitution. Court personnel, as public servants, must uphold the highest standards of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. Habitual absenteeism constitutes a blatant violation of this duty, showing remissness and inefficiency. Such conduct undermines public accountability and erodes faith in the judiciary, which the Court cannot countenance. Applying Section 22(q) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law (E.O. No. 292), which penalizes frequent unauthorized absences, the Court suspended Ms. Sabido for six months without pay, with a stern warning against repetition.