A.M. No. P-05-1993; April 26, 2005
Vice-Executive Judge Divina Luz P. Aquino-Simbulan, Complainant, vs. Edgardo A. Zabat, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, San Fernando, Pampanga, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a complaint filed by Vice-Executive Judge Divina Luz P. Aquino-Simbulan against Sheriff Edgardo Zabat for repeated violations of office attendance and locator policies. The first incident occurred on September 15, 2003, when a surprise check revealed Zabat was absent from his official station despite having logged in for work, and he had no travel order or entry in the Official Locator Logbook. He later explained he left due to illness. A second infraction happened on October 3, 2003, under similar circumstances, where he was absent without proper authorization. He claimed he was attending to office visitors and then consulting with another judge.
A third incident took place on March 24, 2004, when Zabat failed to attend a mandatory raffle of extra-judicial foreclosure cases. He initially stated he was at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) to return a writ but changed his story, admitting he assisted a personal friend there. He had logged out without indicating his purpose and without a travel order, despite prior memoranda and warnings.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Edgardo A. Zabat is administratively liable for his repeated absences from his official station during office hours without following prescribed procedures.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of simple misconduct. The legal logic centers on the fundamental principle that a public office is a public trust, requiring judiciary personnel to observe official time strictly to maintain public respect for the justice system. While the Court acknowledged that some absences, like those due to illness, could be justified, Zabat’s recurring failure to comply with office protocols constituted a breach of duty.
His actions demonstrated a pattern of neglecting the basic procedural requirement to inform his superiors of his whereabouts during office hours, either through a travel order or a proper logbook entry. This failure hindered office efficiency and accountability. For the first two incidents, the Court considered the violations less grave, especially as he showed openness to reform. However, the third incident on March 24, 2004, was unequivocally unjustified. His absence from the mandatory raffle and his false and shifting explanations for being at the MTCC—initially for official business, then to assist a personal friend—confirmed a disregard for office rules he had already been warned about. Applying CSC Resolution No. 99-1936, which classifies simple misconduct as a less grave offense, and considering his length of service and impending retirement, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to one month’s salary, deductible from his retirement benefits.