A.M. No. P-210. December 16, 1974. JOSE L. MADRID, complainant, vs. MELCHOR C. RAZO, JR., respondent.
FACTS

Deputy Clerk of Court Jose L. Madrid of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, Branch III, filed an administrative complaint against Stitcher Melchor C. Razo, Jr. for insubordination, inefficiency, and habitual absenteeism. The charges detailed Razo’s repeated absences and irregular attendance despite official reprimands, his alleged mishandling of court records and mail duties, and his failure to file timely leave applications and daily time records for several months in 1973. The matter was investigated by Presiding Judge Aquilino P. Bonto.
Judge Bonto’s report found the charge of inefficiency unsubstantiated, as it relied solely on the complainant’s uncorroborated testimony without concrete evidence of negligence in tasks like stitching or mailing. However, the charges of insubordination and habitual absenteeism were deemed sufficiently proven. The evidence showed Razo was repeatedly absent, and Madrid was compelled to forward Razo’s delinquent leave applications and time records to the Supreme Court in bulk, actions which would not have been taken without cause, demonstrating Razo’s disregard for office directives.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Melchor C. Razo, Jr. is administratively liable for the charges of insubordination and habitual absenteeism.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the investigating judge. On insubordination, the evidence established that respondent ignored official calls to rectify his irregular attendance and failure to submit required documents promptly, compelling his superior to take corrective action. This constituted a clear act of disobedience to lawful orders.
Regarding habitual absenteeism, the documentary evidence, consisting of Razo’s own leave applications, revealed he was absent for thirty-four days within a four-month period. Most of these absences were justified with vague “personal” reasons or were unsupported by evidence, except for a seven-day period in August backed by a medical certificate. The Court found his explanations for not securing medical certificates for other alleged illnesses unconvincing, especially given his claimed access to several physicians. Such a pattern of unjustified absences constitutes habitual absenteeism, which undermines public service efficiency.
The charge of inefficiency was correctly dismissed due to a lack of substantial evidence. Consequently, for the proven acts of insubordination and habitual absenteeism, the Supreme Court ordered the suspension of Melchor C. Razo, Jr. for six months without pay, with a stern warning against repetition.