G.R. No. P-02-1645. April 21, 2003
Gilbert Howard M. Atienza, Clerk of Court III, MTCC, Batangas City, complainant, vs. Josephine V. Dinampo, Court Stenographer II, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Gilbert Howard M. Atienza, Clerk of Court III of the MTCC of Batangas City, filed a letter-complaint against respondent Josephine V. Dinampo, a Court Stenographer II in the same court, for repeated absences without official leave. The periods of unauthorized absence spanned from January 18 to February 21, 2001, and again from February 27 to March 2, 2001. These absences, occurring despite a prior warning, caused additional workload for her colleagues and delayed the transcription of stenographic notes. Although Dinampo’s husband informed the office she was sick on January 25, she filed no formal leave applications. She briefly returned to work on February 22 and 26, 2001, but only after the complaint was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) did she report regularly starting March 5, 2001.
A discreet investigation by Executive Judge Ruben A. Galvez confirmed the unauthorized absences from official records. Verification showed Dinampo eventually submitted leave applications for the periods in question, but these were disapproved by the branch clerk of court, resulting in her being considered absent without official leave (AWOL) for a total of 38 days across January, February, and March 2001. Judge Galvez noted, however, that following the complaint, Dinampo had been reporting for work regularly and appeared to have reformed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Josephine V. Dinampo is administratively liable for her unauthorized absences, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found Dinampo guilty of malfeasance for unauthorized absenteeism. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle that public office is a public trust, requiring accountability, responsibility, and efficiency from all court personnel. By being continuously absent without approved leave, Dinampo transgressed Section 63, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, which mandates separation from service for absences exceeding thirty days without leave. Her actions fell short of the exacting standards demanded of judiciary employees and impaired court operations.
However, the Court considered mitigating circumstances in determining the penalty. Dinampo’s belated filing of leave applications and her immediate return to work upon learning of the complaint demonstrated a realization of her fault and a continued interest in her employment. The investigating judge’s finding that she had since reformed and reported regularly was given weight. While these factors do not absolve her, they mitigate the offense. Consequently, instead of dismissal, the Court adopted the OCA’s recommendation and imposed a six-month and one-day suspension without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The penalty aligns with the disciplinary framework while recognizing the potential for reform.