AM P 03 1695; (April, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-03-1695. April 21, 2003
Clerk of Court Artemio H. Quidilla, Jr. vs. Junar G. Armida
FACTS
Complainant Atty. Artemio H. Quidilla, Jr., Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, charged respondent Junar G. Armida, a Clerk III in the same court, with habitual absenteeism and tardiness. The March 2, 2001 office memorandum detailed numerous unauthorized absences and late arrivals for January, February, March, and December 2001. It also noted that on three specific dates, respondent’s time card was punched in, yet he was absent from work.
In his explanation, respondent admitted the charges. He cited his remote residence in Nueva Era, 48 kilometers from the workplace, as the cause for tardiness and attributed his absences to recurrent headaches and stomach aches. He claimed he applied for leave for his absences but submitted the applications late. The complainant found these excuses unconvincing, noting other employees from the same or farther areas arrived on time and that respondent’s leave applications were only submitted after he was directed to explain. The matter was elevated to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
ISSUE
Whether respondent Junar G. Armida is administratively liable for his habitual absenteeism and tardiness.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust, requiring all court personnel to adhere to the highest standards of responsibility and efficiency. Punctuality is a strict requirement under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 2-99, which mandates severe disciplinary action for absenteeism and tardiness to maintain public faith in the judiciary.
Respondent’s admission of the charges rendered a formal investigation unnecessary. His excuses of distance and illness were deemed insufficient, especially given the accessibility of his route and the timely attendance of colleagues from similar locales. His belated submission of leave applications was seen as a mere subterfuge to evade liability. Such conduct constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, as it violates the exacting ethical standards expected of judiciary employees and undermines the integrity and efficiency of public service.
Accordingly, the Court suspended respondent Junar G. Armida for six months and one day, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same acts would be dealt with more severely.