A.M. No. P-11-2930 February 17, 2015
LEAVE DIVISION – O.A.S., OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, vs. TYKE J. SARCENO, Respondent.

FACTS

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended an administrative complaint for habitual absenteeism against respondent Tyke J. Sarceno, Clerk III of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Manila. This was based on findings that he incurred 92 days of unauthorized absences from June to September 2009. In his comment, Sarceno explained his absences were due to illness (abdominal pains, fever, influenza, and later gonorrhea), leading to self-medication and belated medical consultation, and that he applied for leaves but sometimes lacked supporting certificates. He expressed repentance and a commitment to correct his shortcomings. However, he continued to incur unexplained absences. In 2010, his presiding judge reported that Sarceno had not reported for work since July 28, 2010, had incurred 37 absences in 2010 (with 34 in July, August, and September), did not apply for leave for his July and August 2010 absences, and his excessive absences indicated abandonment of duty. A tracer letter to his residence went unanswered. The OCA, in its Administrative Matter for Agenda, found him liable for habitual absenteeism, noting his failure to reform despite previous warnings and his non-compliance with directives. The Court had already dropped Sarceno’s name from the rolls on February 22, 2012, without prejudice to the outcome of this administrative matter.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Tyke J. Sarceno is administratively liable for habitual absenteeism and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the public service.

RULING

Yes, the Court adopted the OCA’s findings and recommendation, holding Sarceno guilty of habitual absenteeism and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the public service. Habitual absenteeism is defined under Administrative Circular No. 14-2002 as incurring unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester or three consecutive months during the year. Sarceno’s 92 unauthorized absences in 2009 and his subsequent absences in 2010, particularly 34 days in three consecutive months, clearly met this definition. His prolonged and habitual unauthorized absences also constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the public service, as they caused inefficiency and violated the norm of public accountability. Despite being given an opportunity to explain and reform, Sarceno repeated the offense. The Court confirmed his dismissal from the service, with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency, and with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits.