A.M. No. P-17-3710 (Formerly A.M. No. 13-6-44-MeTC) and A.M. No. P-18-3822 (Formerly A.M. No. 13-7-62-MeTC). March 13, 2018.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. VLADIMIR A. BRAVO, COURT INTERPRETER II, BRANCH 24, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MANILA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

These consolidated administrative cases stem from the habitual absenteeism of respondent Vladimir A. Bravo, Court Interpreter II of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Manila, Branch 24. The Branch Clerk of Court reported that Bravo had been continuously absent without official leave (AWOL) since September 19, 2012. Subsequent certifications from the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) Leave Division revealed he incurred 72.5 days of unauthorized absences in 2012 and 61 days in 2013, totaling 133.5 days.
The OCA repeatedly directed Bravo to comment on the charges against him. He failed to file any comment or explanation for his absences. Instead, he tendered his resignation from the Judiciary, effective August 23, 2013, prior to the resolution of the administrative cases.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Vladimir A. Bravo is guilty of habitual absenteeism warranting the penalty of dismissal from the service with accessory penalties.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Bravo guilty of habitual absenteeism and imposed the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from re-employment. Under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991, habitual absenteeism exists when an employee incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester or three consecutive months in a year. Bravo’s extensive unauthorized absences, far exceeding the allowable limit, clearly constitute habitual absenteeism.
His failure to file any comment on the charges was correctly construed by the OCA as an admission of the allegations. The Court emphasized that his subsequent resignation was a tactical move to evade administrative liability and preserve a chance for future government re-employment, a scheme that cannot be countenanced. Court personnel must uphold the public trust by strictly observing official time. Habitual absenteeism is detrimental to public service. Given the gravity of the offense, the absence of mitigating circumstances, and his disregard of the OCA’s directives, the Court imposed the ultimate penalty. Bravo is dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency or corporation.