AM P 04 1801; (April, 2004) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-04-1801. April 2, 2004. JUDGE JOSE C. REYES, JR., complainant, vs. RICARDO CRISTI, respondent.
FACTS
A letter-complaint was filed by the Clerk of Court against respondent Ricardo Cristi, Cash Clerk II, for habitual absenteeism and dishonesty. It was alleged that from June to November 1999, Cristi was absent for 57 days and present for only 75 days, having exhausted his leave credits by April 1999 yet continued to receive his salary. He was also accused of dishonesty for superimposing his signature on the attendance logbook on lines indicating the close of office hours, making it appear he was present on days he was allegedly absent. In his comment, Cristi admitted the absences but claimed he filed leave applications which were not acted upon, and denied falsifying the logbook. He had already resigned from his position effective March 3, 2000.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent is administratively liable despite his prior resignation from service.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court ruled that his resignation did not render the case moot and academic nor divest it of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction attached upon the filing of the complaint in February 2000, before his resignation took effect in March 2000. Resignation during pendency does not preclude the Court from determining administrative liability, as doing otherwise would deprive the Court of its disciplinary authority and foster injustice.
On the merits, the Court found Cristi guilty of habitual absenteeism. His 57 days of unauthorized absences over six months exceeded the allowable 2.5 days monthly under civil service rules, constituting a grave offense. While the investigating judge found insufficient evidence for the dishonesty charge regarding the logbook, the absenteeism was substantiated by his own admissions and records. For a first offense of habitual absenteeism, the penalty would typically be suspension. However, since Cristi had resigned, suspension was no longer feasible. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to three months’ salary, to be deducted from any remaining benefits or leave credits, emphasizing that public office is a public trust and the conduct of court personnel must uphold the integrity of the judiciary.