G.R. No. A.M. No. 98-1263-P March 6, 1998
SERGIO V. EAMIGUEL, O.I.C., complainant, vs. EDILBERTO HO, Staff Assistant II, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Sergio V. Eamiguel, Officer-in-Charge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16, Naval, Biliran, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Edilberto Ho, Clerk II detailed at the same court, for absenteeism, insubordination, misconduct, and non-observance of office directives. The complaint detailed respondent’s unauthorized absences from December 1995 through April 1996, including: being absent without leave for almost the entire month of December 1995; frequent absences in January, February, March, and April 1996; and instances where he registered in the office logbook in the morning but then left and did not return, or falsely logged presence on dates he was absent. The complaint also alleged that respondent ignored a letter and a memorandum from complainant requesting him to report for work and explain his absences, and instead uttered invectives against complainant. Respondent denied all allegations, claiming his leaves were approved and that complainant was motivated by ill will. The case was referred to Judge Briccio T. Aguilos, Jr. for investigation, who found respondent guilty based on substantial evidence. The Office of the Court Administrator affirmed the findings but noted that the Court En Banc had already ordered respondent dropped from the service effective November 2, 1995, for absence without official leave (AWOL) in a related resolution. It recommended dismissal from service due to the established acts inimical to the service.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Edilberto Ho is administratively liable for habitual absenteeism, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to public service, warranting dismissal from the service.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court agreed with the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. Respondent’s frequent unauthorized absences constituted habitual absenteeism and dereliction of duty, prejudicing public service. Moreover, his act of signing the logbook to falsely indicate presence when he was absent or would leave thereafter constituted dishonesty. The Court emphasized that every judiciary employee must be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty. Given the gravity of the offenses, respondent warranted dismissal from the service. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED respondent Edilberto Ho from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or government-owned and controlled corporation.