G.R. No. P-05-1940. February 28, 2005
JUDGE LEAH DOMINGO-REGALA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 226, QUEZON CITY, complainant, vs. MA. DONNA Y. SULTAN, LEGAL RESEARCHER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 226, QUEZON CITY, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Judge Leah Domingo-Regala charged respondent Ma. Donna Y. Sultan, a Legal Researcher, with inefficiency, habitual absenteeism, tardiness, falsification of Daily Time Records (DTRs), dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the service. The charges stemmed from respondent’s unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester, specifically from June to December 1999, in violation of Administrative Circular No. 1-91. The judge also alleged habitual tardiness, where respondent would log an earlier arrival time, and leaving the office for extended lunch breaks. Further accusations included incompetence in legal research, dishonesty for falsely claiming her daughter was hospitalized, and engaging in long personal phone calls or conversations with lawyers with pending cases.
Respondent admitted to the absences but claimed that, except for October to December 1999, they were authorized. For the disapproved leaves during those three months, she cited a serious family problem involving her unwed daughter’s pregnancy and subsequent medical relapse. She denied falsifying her DTR, asserting she logged her actual time, and explained that any office exits were with permission. She apologized for her shortcomings and sought forgiveness, highlighting her previous “Very Satisfactory” performance rating and attributing any errors to a need for more guidance.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Ma. Donna Y. Sultan is administratively liable for the charges of habitual absenteeism, tardiness, falsification, dishonesty, inefficiency, and conduct prejudicial to the service.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable, but the penalty is mitigated. The Court found the charges of habitual absenteeism and conduct prejudicial to the service substantiated. Respondent’s unauthorized absences for October, November, and December 1999 clearly violated Administrative Circular No. 1-91, constituting habitual absenteeism. Her actions eroded public trust in the judiciary and constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Court personnel must adhere to strict standards of conduct and efficiency.
However, the Court considered mitigating circumstances. Respondent faced a grave family crisis during her period of unauthorized absence, requiring her to care for her daughter and grandchild. She expressed remorse, admitted her faults, and this was her first offense. Following precedent where humanitarian reasons are considered in mitigation, the Court modified the recommended penalty. Instead of dismissal, respondent is SUSPENDED for three (3) months without pay and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition will be dealt with more severely. The charges for tardiness, falsification, and dishonesty were not sufficiently proven.