AM P 06 2284; (December, 2006) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-06-2284. December 19, 2006. ENGRACIO M. ESCASINAS, JR., complainant, vs. GARY G. LAWAS, Clerk III, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Makati City, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Clerk of Court Engracio M. Escasinas, Jr. charged respondent Gary G. Lawas, a Clerk III in the same Makati RTC office, with frequent unauthorized absences and tardiness. The complaint detailed that in 2004, Lawas incurred 148 days of absences and was tardy 65 times. From February to June 2005, he was absent for 95 days, all unauthorized as his leave applications were disapproved. Escasinas had issued several memoranda warning Lawas about these infractions and his failure to submit his daily time records and leave applications properly.
In his comment, Lawas admitted to the frequent unauthorized absences and tardiness. He pleaded for leniency, attributing his lapses to severe rheumatic arthritis. He stated he had resumed reporting for work starting July 4, 2005. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), after verification, confirmed the extensive record of absences and tardiness and recommended a six-month suspension without pay.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Gary G. Lawas is administratively liable for Habitual Absenteeism and Tardiness.
RULING
Yes, the Court found respondent guilty. The legal standard for habitual absenteeism under civil service rules is incurred when an employee has unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester or three consecutive months. Habitual tardiness exists when tardiness is incurred ten times a month for at least two months in a semester or two consecutive months. Lawas’s own admissions and the OCA’s certification, which showed 65 instances of tardiness in 2004 and 95 days of unauthorized absences in 2005, clearly met these criteria.
The Court rejected Lawas’s excuse of illness. While his ailment might explain some absences, it did not justify his failure to file proper leave applications or notify his office, which demonstrated a lack of responsibility and courtesy. The Court emphasized that court personnel must strictly observe official time to maintain public respect for the judiciary. Under the applicable rules, frequent unauthorized absences warrant suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first offense. Considering his admission and promise to reform, the Court deemed the OCA’s recommended penalty of a six-month suspension without pay as appropriate, with a warning for stricter penalties for future violations.